Library:The United Front

The United Front: The Struggle against Fascism and War
Author	Georgi Dimitrov
Publisher	Lawrence & Wishart
First published	1938 London
Source	https://archive.org/details/the-united-front-georgi-dimitrov/mode/1up

The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International

Fascism and the Working Class

Comrades, as early as its Sixth Congress,* the Communist In¬ ternational warned the world proletariat that a new fascist offensive was in preparation and called for a straggle against it. The Congress pointed out that “in a more or less developed form, fascist tenden¬ cies and the germs of a fascist movement are to be found almost everywhere.”

With the development of the present very deep economic crisis, with the general crisis of capitalism becoming sharply marked and the mass of working people becoming revolutionized, fascism has embarked upon a wide offensive. The ruling bourgeoisie more and more seeks salvation in fascism, with the object of taking excep¬ tional predatory measures against the toilers, preparing for an impe¬ rialist war of plunder, attacking the Soviet Union, enslaving and partitioning China, and by all these means preventing revolution.

Imperialist circles are trying to put the whole burden of the cri¬ sis on the backs of the toilers. That is why they need fascism.

They are trying to solve the problem of markets by enslaving the weak nations, by intensifying colonial oppression and repartitioning the world anew by means of war. That is why they need fascism.

They are striving to forestall the growth of the forces of revolu¬ tion by smashing the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants and by undertaking a military attack against the Soviet Union - the bulwark of the world proletariat. That is why they need fascism.

In a number of countries, Germany in particular, these imperial¬ ist circles have succeeded, before the masses have decisively turned toward revolution, in inflicting defeat on the proletariat and estab¬ lishing a fascist dictatorship.

But it is characteristic of the victory of fascism that this victory, on the one hand, bears witness to the weakness of the proletariat, disorganized and paralyzed by the disruptive Social-Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and, on the other, expresses the weakness of the bourgeoisie itself, afraid of the reali¬ zation of a united straggle of the working class, afraid of revolution, and no longer in a position to maintain its dictatorship over the masses by the old methods of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarism.

The victory of fascism in Germany, Comrade Stalin said at the Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

...must be regarded not only as a symptom of the weakness of the working class and as a result of the betray¬ al of the working class by Social-Democracy, which paved the way for fascism; it must also be regarded as a symptom of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, as a symptom of the fact that the bourgeoisie is already unable to rale by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and, as a consequence, is compelled in its home policy to resort to terroristic methods of administration - it must be taken as a symptom of the fact that it is no longer able to find a way out of the present situation on the basis of a peaceful foreign policy, as a consequence of which it is compelled to resort to a policy of war.'

The Class Character of Fascism

Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thir¬ teenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist Inter¬ national as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.

The most reactionary variety of fascism is the German type of fascism, ft has the effrontery to call itself National-Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. Hitler fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is bestial chauvinism, ft is a gov¬ ernment system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practiced upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligent- sia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations and countries.

German fascism is acting as the spearhead of international counter-revolution, as the chief instigator of imperialist war, as the initiator of a crusade against the Soviet Union, the great fatherland of the toilers of the whole world.

Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both clas¬ ses - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for in¬ stance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British So¬ cialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not super-class govern¬ ment, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen- proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance cap¬ ital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its crudest form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.

This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed; because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been driven out of its course by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real class character and its true nature.

The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to histori¬ cal, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities and the international position of the given country. In certain coun¬ tries, principally those in which fascism has no extensive mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is fairly acute, fascism does not imme¬ diately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a certain degree of legality. In other countries, where the mling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unre¬ stricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all competing parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without alter- ing its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.

The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succes¬ sion of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie — bourgeois democracy — by another form — open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake which would prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the straggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, in establishing the fas¬ cist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie which are at present increasingly developing in bourgeois- democratic countries - measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of par¬ liament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.

Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be con¬ ceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some com¬ mittee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship. In reality, fascism usually comes to power in the course of a mutual, and at times severe, straggle against the old bourgeois parties, or a definite section of these parties, in the course of a straggle even within the fascist camp itself - a straggle which at times leads to armed clashes, as we have witnessed in the case of Germany, Austria and other countries. All this, however, does not make less important the fact that, before the establishment of a fas¬ cist dictatorship, bourgeois governments usually pass through a number of preliminary stages and adopt a number of reactionary measures which directly facilitate the accession to power of fas¬ cism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bour¬ geoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.

The Social-Democratic leaders glossed over and concealed from the masses the true class nature of fascism, and did not call them to the straggle against the increasingly reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie. They bear great historical responsibility for the fact that, at the decisive moment of the fascist offensive, a large section of the working people of Germany and of a number of other fascist countries failed to recognize in fascism the most bloodthirsty monster of finance, their most vicious enemy, and that these masses were not prepared to resist it.

What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically ap¬ peals to their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments of the masses, on their sense of jus¬ tice, and sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Why do the German fascists, those lackeys of the big bourgeoisie and mortal enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as “So¬ cialists,” and depict their accession to power as a “revolution”? Be¬ cause they try to exploit the faith in revolution and urge toward so¬ cialism that lives in the hearts of the mass of working people in Germany.

Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in the guise of champion of an ill- treated nation, and appeals to outraged national sentiments, as Ger¬ man fascism did, for instance, when it won the support of the mass¬ es by the slogan “Against the Versailles Treaty!”

Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses, but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist dema¬ gogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany - “The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual”; in Italy — “Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state; in Japan - “For Japan, without exploitation”; in the United States — “Share the wealth,” and so forth.

Fascism delivers up the people to be devoured by the most cor¬ rupt and venal elements, but comes before them with the demand for “an honest and incorruptible government.” Speculating on the profound disillusionment of the masses in bourgeois-democratic governments, fascism hypocritically denounces corruption (for in¬ stance, the Barmat and Sklarek affairs in Germany, the Stavisky affair in France, and numerous others).

It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bour¬ geoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the se¬ verity of its attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcil¬ able attitude to the old bourgeois parties.

Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois reaction, fascism adapts its demagogy to the national pe¬ culiarities of each country, and even to the peculiarities of the vari¬ ous social strata in one and the same country. And the mass of the petty-bourgeoisie and even a section of the workers, reduced to des¬ pair by want, unemployment and the insecurity of their existence, fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism.

Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolution¬ ary movement of the proletariat, on the mass of the people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its accession to power as a “revolu¬ tionary” movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of “the whole nation” and for the “salvation” of the nation. (One recalls Mussoli¬ ni’s “march” on Rome, Pilsudski’s “march” on Warsaw, Hitler’s National-Socialist “revolution” in Germany, and so forth.)

But whatever the masks which fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power -

Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people ;

Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and annexationist war ;

Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution ;

Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people!

What Are the Fruits of Victorious Fascism for the Masses?

Fascism promised the workers “a fair wage,” but actually it has brought them an even lower, a pauper standard of living. It prom¬ ised work for the unemployed, but actually it has brought them even more painful torments of starvation and forced servile labor. In practice it converts the workers and unemployed into pariahs of capitalist society stripped of rights; destroys their trade unions; de¬ prives them of the right to strike and to have their working class press, forces them into fascist organizations, plunders their social insurance funds and transforms the mills and factories into barracks where the unbridled arbitrary rule of the capitalist reigns.

Fascism promised the working youth a broad highway to a bril¬ liant future. But actually it has brought wholesale dismissals of young workers, labor camps and incessant military drilling for a war of conquest.

Fascism promised to guarantee office workers, petty officials and intellectuals security of existence, to destroy the omnipotence of the trusts and wipe out profiteering by bank capital. But actually it has brought them an ever greater degree of despair and uncertain¬ ty as to the morrow; it is subjecting them to a new bureaucracy made up of the most submissive of its followers, it is setting up an intolerable dictatorship of the trusts and spreading cormption and degeneration to an unprecedented extent.

Fascism promised the ruined and impoverished peasants to put an end to debt bondage, to abolish rent and even to expropriate the landed estates without compensation, in the interests of the landless and ruined peasants. But actually it is placing the toiling peasants in a state of unprecedented servitude to the trusts and the fascist state apparatus, and pushes to the utmost limit the exploitation of the great mass of the peasantry by the big landowners, the banks and the usurers.

“Germany will be a peasant country, or will not be at all,” Hit¬ ler solemnly declared. And what did the peasants of Germany get under Hitler? The moratorium, which has already been canceled? Or the law on the inheritance of peasant property, which leads to millions of sons and daughters of peasants being squeezed out of the villages and reduced to paupers? Farm laborers have been trans¬ formed into semi-serfs, deprived even of the elementary right of free movement. The working peasants have been deprived of the opportunity of selling the produce of their farms in the market.

And in Poland?

The Polish peasant — says the Polish newspaper Czas - employs methods and means which were used perhaps only in the Middle Ages; he nurses the fire in his stove and lends it to his neighbor; he splits matches into several parts; he lends dirty soap-water to others; he boils herring barrels in order to obtain salt water. This is not a fable, but the actual state of affairs in the countryside, of the truth of which an¬ ybody may convince himself.

And it is not Communists who write this, comrades, but a Polish reactionary newspaper!

But this is by no means all.

Every day, in the concentration camps of fascist Germany, in the cellars of the Gestapo (German secret police), in the torture chambers of Poland, in the cells of the Bulgarian and Finnish secret police, in the “Glavnyacha” in Belgrade, in the Rumanian “Siguranza” and on the Italian islands, some of the best sons of the working class, revolu¬ tionary peasants, fighters for the splendid future of mankind, are be¬ ing subjected to revolting tortures and indignities, before which pale the most abominable acts of the tsarist secret police. The blackguard¬ ly German fascists beat husbands to a bloody pulp in the presence of their wives, and send the ashes of murdered sons by parcel post to their mothers. Sterilization has been made a method of political war¬ fare. In the torture chambers, imprisoned anti-fascists are given injec¬ tions of poison, their arms are broken, their eyes gouged out; they are stmng up and have water pumped into them; the fascist swastika is carved in their living flesh.

I have before me a statistical summary drawn up by the Interna¬ tional Red Aid - the international organization for aid to revolution¬ ary fighters regarding the number of killed, wounded, arrested, maimed and tortured to death in Germany, Poland, Italy, Austria, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. In Germany alone, since the National- Socialists came to power, over 4,200 anti-fascist workers, peasants, employees, intellectuals - Communists, Social-Democrats and members of opposition Christian organizations - have been mur¬ dered, 317,800 arrested, 218,600 injured and subjected to torture. In Austria, since the battles of February last year, the “Christian” fas¬ cist government has murdered 1,900 revolutionary workers, maimed and injured 10,000 and arrested 40,000. And this summary, com¬ rades, is far from complete.

Words fail me in describing the indignation which seizes us at the thought of the torments which the working people are now un¬ dergoing in a number of fascist countries. The facts and figures we quote do not reflect one-hundredth part of the true picture of the exploitation and tortures inflicted by the White terror and forming part of the daily life of the working class in many capitalist coun¬ tries. Volumes cannot give a just picture of the countless brutalities inflicted by fascism on the working people.

With feelings of profound emotion and hatred for the fascist butchers, we dip the banners of the Communist International before the unforgettable memory of John Scheer, Fiete Schulz and Luttgens in Germany, Koloman Wallisch and Munichreiter in Aus¬ tria, Sallai and Furst in Hungary, Kofardzhiev, Lutbrisky and Voikov in Bulgaria — before the memory of thousands and thou¬ sands of Communists, Social-Democrats and no-party workers, peasants and representatives of the progressive intelligentsia who have laid down their lives in the struggle against fascism.

From this platform we greet the leader of the German proletari¬ at and the honorary chairman of our Congress - Comrade Thaelmann. We greet Comrades Rakosi, Gramsci, Antikainen and Yonko Panov. We greet the leader of the Spanish Socialists, Cabal¬ lero, imprisoned by the counter-revolutionaries; Tom Mooney, who has been languishing in prison for eighteen years, and the thousands of other prisoners of capitalism and fascism and we say to them: “Brothers in the fight, brothers in arms, you are not forgotten. We are with you. We shall give every hour of our lives, every drop of our blood, for your liberation, and for the liberation of all toilers from the shameful regime of fascism.”

Comrades, it was Lenin who warned us that the bourgeoisie may succeed in overwhelming the toilers by savage terror, in check¬ ing the growing forces of revolution for brief periods of time, but that, nevertheless, this would not save it from its doom.

Life will assert itself - Lenin wrote — Let the bourgeoi¬ sie rave, work itself into a frenzy, overdo things, commit stupidities, take vengeance on the Bolsheviks in advance and endeavor to kill off (in India, Hungary, Germany, etc.) hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands more of yesterday’s and tomorrow’s Bolsheviks. Acting thus, the bourgeoisie acts as all classes doomed by history have act¬ ed. Communists should know that the future, at any rate, belongs to them; therefore, we can, and must, combine the most intense passion in the great revolutionary struggle with the coolest and most sober evaluation of the mad rav¬ ings of the bourgeoisie.

Aye, if we and the proletariat of the whole world firmly follow the path indicated by Lenin and Stalin, the bourgeoisie will perish in spite of everything.

Is the Victory of Fascism Inevitable?

Why was it that fascism could triumph, and how?

Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and working people. Fascism is the enemy of nine-tenths of the German people, nine-tenths of the Austrian people, nine-tenths of the other people in fascist countries. How, in what way, could this vicious enemy triumph?

Fascism was able to come to power primarily because the working class, owing to the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie pursued by the Social-Democratic leaders, proved to be split, politically and organizationally disarmed, in face of the on¬ slaught of the bourgeoisie. And the Communist Parties, on the other hand, apart from and in opposition to the Social-Democrats, were not strong enough to rouse the masses and to lead them in a decisive straggle against fascism.

And, indeed, let the millions of Social-Democratic workers, who together with their Communist brothers are now experiencing the horrors of fascist barbarism, seriously reflect on this. If, in 1918, when revolution broke out in Germany and Austria, the Austrian and German proletariat had not followed the Social-Democratic leader¬ ship of Otto Bauer, Friedrich Adler and Karl Renner in Austria and Ebert and Scheidemann in Germany, but had followed the road of the Russian Bolsheviks, the road of Lenin and Stalin, there would now be no fascism in Austria or Germany, in Italy or Hungary, in Poland or in the Balkans. Not the bourgeoisie, but the working class would long ago have been the master of the situation in Europe.

Take, for example, the Austrian Social-Democratic Party. The revolution of 1918 raised it to a tremendous height. It held the power in its hands, it held strong positions in the army and in the state appa¬ ratus. Relying on these positions, it could have nipped fascism in the bud. But it surrendered one position of the working class after another without resistance. It allowed the bourgeoisie to strengthen its power, annul the constitution, purge the state apparatus, army and police force of Social-Democratic functionaries and take the arsenals away from the workers. It allowed the fascist bandits to murder Social- Democratic workers with impunity and accepted the terms of the Huettenberg pact, which gave the fascist elements entry to the facto¬ ries. At the same time the Social-Democratic leaders fooled the work¬ ers with the Linz program, which contained the alternative possibility of using armed force against the bourgeoisie and establishing the pro¬ letarian dictatorship, assuring them that in the event of the ruling class using force against the working class, the Party would reply by a call for a general strike and for armed struggle. As though the whole poli¬ cy of preparation for a fascist attack on the working class were not one chain of acts of violence against the working class masked by constitutional forms! Even on the eve and in the course of the Febru¬ ary battles the Austrian Social-Democratic leaders left the heroically fighting Schutzbund isolated from the masses, and doomed the Aus¬ trian proletariat to defeat.

Was the victory of fascism inevitable in Germany? No, the German working class could have prevented it.

But in order to do so, it should have achieved a united anti¬ fascist proletarian front, and forced the Social-Democratic leaders to put a stop to their campaign against the Communists and to accept the repeated proposals of the Communist Party for united action against fascism.

When fascism was on the offensive and the bourgeois demo¬ cratic liberties were being progressively abolished by the bourgeoi¬ sie, it should not have contented itself with the verbal resolutions of the Social-Democrats, but should have replied by a genuine mass struggle, which would have made the fulfillment of the fascist plans of the German bourgeoisie more difficult.

It should not have allowed the prohibition of the League of Red Front Fighters by the government of Braun and Severing, and should have established fighting contact between the League and the Reichsbanner, with its nearly one million members, and have compelled Braun and Severing to arm both these organizations in order to resist and smash the fascist bands.

It should have compelled the Social-Democratic leaders who headed the Prussian government to adopt measures of defense against fascism, arrest the fascist leaders, close down their press, confiscate their material resources and the resources of the capital- ists who were financing the fascist movement, dissolve the fascist organizations, deprive them of their weapons and so forth.

Furthermore, it should have secured the re-establishment and extension of all forms of social assistance and the introduction of a moratorium and crisis benefits for the peasants — who were being mined under the influence of crises — by taxing the banks and the trusts, in this way securing for itself the support of the working peasants. It was the fault of the Social-Democrats of Germany that this was not done, and that is why fascism was able to triumph.

Was it inevitable that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy should have triumphed in Spain, a country where the forces of proletarian revolt are so advantageously combined with a peasant war?

The Spanish Socialists were in the government from the first days of the revolution. Did they establish fighting contact between the working class organizations of every political opinion, including the Communists and the Anarchists, and did they weld the working class into a united trade union organization? Did they demand the confiscation of all lands of the landlords, the church and the monas¬ teries in favor of the peasants in order to win over the latter to the side of the revolution? Did they attempt to fight for national self- determination for the Catalonians and the Basques, and for the lib¬ eration of Morocco? Did they purge the army of monarchist and fascist elements and prepare it for passing over to the side of the workers and peasants? Did they dissolve the Civil Guard, so detest¬ ed by the people, the executioner of every movement of the people? Did they strike at the fascist party of Gil Robles and at the might of the Catholic church? No, they did none of these things. They reject¬ ed the frequent proposals of the Communists for united action against the offensive of the bourgeois-landlord reaction and fas¬ cism; they passed election laws which enabled the reactionaries to gain a majority in the Cortes (parliament), laws which penalized popular movements, laws under which the heroic miners of Asturias are now being tried. They had peasants who were fighting for land shot by the Civil Guard, and so on.

This is the way in which the Social-Democrats, by disorganiz¬ ing and splitting the ranks of the working class, cleared the path to power for fascism in Germany, Austria and Spain.

Comrades, fascism also triumphed for the reason that the prole¬ tariat found itself isolated from its natural allies. Fascism triumphed because it was able to win over large masses of the peasantry, ow- ing to the fact that the Social-Democrats, in the name of the work¬ ing class, pursued what was in fact an anti-peasant policy. The peasant saw in power a number of Social-Democratic governments, which in his eyes were an embodiment of the power of the working class, but not one of them put an end to peasant want, none of them gave land to the peasantry. In Germany, the Social-Democrats did not touch the landlords; they combated the strikes of the agricultural workers, with the result that long before Hitler came to power the agricultural workers of Germany were deserting the reformist trade unions and in the majority of cases were going over to the Stahlhelm and to the National-Socialists.

Fascism also triumphed for the reason that it was able to pene¬ trate the ranks of the youth , whereas the Social-Democrats diverted the working class youth from the class struggle, while the revolu¬ tionary proletariat did not develop the necessary educational work among the youth and did not pay enough attention to the straggle for its specific interests and demands. Fascism grasped the very acute need of the youth for militant activity, and enticed a consider¬ able section of the youth into its fighting detachments. The new generation of young men and women has not experienced the hor¬ rors of war. They have felt the full weight of the economic crisis, unemployment and the disintegration of bourgeois democracy. But, seeing no prospects for the future, large sections of the youth proved to be particularly receptive to fascist demagogy, which de¬ picted for them an alluring future should fascism succeed.

In this connection, we cannot avoid referring also to a number of mistakes committed by the Communist Parties, mistakes that hampered our straggle against fascism.

In our ranks there was an impermissible underestimation of the fascist danger, a tendency which to this day has not everywhere been overcome. Of this nature was the opinion formerly to be met with in our Parties to the effect that “Germany is not Italy,” mean¬ ing that fascism may have succeeded in Italy, but that its success in Germany was out of the question, because the latter is an industrial¬ ly and culturally highly developed country, with forty years of tradi¬ tions of the working class movement, in which fascism was impos¬ sible. Or the kind of opinion which is to be met with nowadays, to the effect that in countries of “classical” bourgeois democracy the soil for fascism does not exist. Such opinions have served and may serve to relax vigilance toward the fascist danger, and to render the mobilization of the proletariat in the struggle against fascism more difficult.

One might also cite not a few instances where Communists were taken unawares by the fascist coup. Remember Bulgaria, where the leadership of our Party took up a “neutral,” but in fact opportunist, position with regard to the coup d’etat of June 9,1923; Poland, where, in May, 1926, the leadership of the Communist Party, making a wrong estimate of the motive forces of the Polish revolution, did not realize the fascist nature of Pilsudski’s coup, and trailed in the rear of events; Finland, where our Party based itself on a false conception of slow and gradual fascization and overlooked the fascist coup which was being prepared by the leading group of the bourgeoisie and which took the Party and the working class unawares.

When National-Socialism had already become a menacing mass movement in Germany, there were comrades who regarded the Bruening government as already a government of fascist dictator¬ ship, and who boastfully declared: “If Hitler’s Third Reich ever comes about, it will be six feet underground, and above it will be the victorious power of the workers.”

Our comrades in Germany for a long time failed to reckon with the wounded national sentiments and the indignation of the masses against the Versailles Treaty; they treated as of little account the waverings of the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie; they were late in drawing up their program of social and national emancipation, and when they did put it forward they were unable to adapt it to the con¬ crete demands of the level of the masses. They were even unable to popularize it widely among the masses.

In a number of countries the necessary development of a mass fight against fascism was replaced by barren hair-splitting as to the nature of fascism “in general” and by a narrow sectarian attitude in formulating and solving the immediate political tasks of the Party.

Comrades, it is not simply because we want to dig up the past that we speak of the causes of the victory of fascism, that we point to the historical responsibility of the Social-Democrats for the de¬ feat of the working class, and that we also point out our own mis¬ takes in the fight against fascism. We are not historians divorced from living reality; we, active fighters of the working class, are obliged to answer the question that is tormenting millions of work¬ ers: Can the victory of fascism be prevented, and how? And we re- ply to these millions of workers: Yes, comrades, the road in the way of fascism can be blocked. It is quite possible. It depends on our¬ selves, on the workers, the peasants and all working people!

Whether the victory of fascism can be prevented depends first and foremost on the militant activity of the working class itself, on whether its forces are welded into a single militant army combating the offensive of capitalism and fascism. By establishing its fighting unity, the proletariat would paralyze the influence of fascism over the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie of the towns, the youth and the intelligentsia, and would be able to neutralize one section of them and win over another section.

Second, it depends on the existence of a strong revolutionary party, correctly leading the straggle of the working people against fascism. A party which systematically calls on the workers to retreat in the face of fascism and permits the fascist bourgeoisie to strengthen its positions will inevitably lead the workers to defeat.

Third, it depends on a correct policy of the working class to¬ ward the peasantry and the petty-bourgeois masses of the towns. These masses must be taken as they are, and not as we should like to have them. It is only in the process of the straggle that they will overcome their doubts and waverings. It is only by a patient attitude toward their inevitable waverings, it is only by the political help of the proletariat, that they will be able to rise to a higher level of revo¬ lutionary consciousness and activity.

Fourth, it depends on the vigilance and timely action of the revolutionary proletariat. The latter must not allow fascism to take it unawares, it must not surrender the initiative to fascism, but must inflict decisive blows on it before it can gather its forces, it must not allow fascism to consolidate its position, it must repel fascism wherever and whenever it rears its head, it must not allow fascism to gain new positions. This is what the French proletariat is so suc¬ cessfully trying to do.

These are the main conditions for preventing the growth of fas¬ cism and its accession to power.

Fascism—A Ferocious but Unstable Power

The fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a ferocious power, but an unstable one.

What are the chief causes of the instability of the fascist dictatorship?

Fascism undertakes to overcome the disharmonies and antago¬ nisms within the bourgeois camp, but it makes these antagonisms even more acute. Fascism tries to establish its political monopoly by violently destroying other political parties. But the existence of the capitalist system, the existence of various classes and the accentua¬ tion of class contradictions inevitably tend to undermine and ex¬ plode the political monopoly of fascism. This is not the case of a Soviet country, where the dictatorship of the proletariat is also real¬ ized by a party with a political monopoly, but where this political monopoly accords with the interests of millions of working people and is increasingly being based on the construction of a classless society. In a fascist country the party of the fascists cannot preserve its monopoly for long, because it cannot set itself the aim of abol¬ ishing classes and class contradictions. It puts an end to the legal existence of bourgeois parties. But a number of them continue to maintain an illegal existence, while the Communist Party even in conditions of illegality continues to make progress, becomes steeled and tempered and leads the straggle of the proletariat against the fascist dictatorship. Hence, under the blows of class contradictions, the political monopoly of fascism is bound to explode.

Another reason for the instability of the fascist dictatorship is that the contrast between the anti-capitalist demagogy of fascism and its policy of enriching the monopolist bourgeoisie in the most piratical fashion makes it easier to expose the class nature of fas¬ cism and tends to shake and narrow its mass basis.

Furthermore, the victory of fascism arouses the deep hatred and indignation of the masses, helps to revolutionize them, and provides a powerful stimulus for a united front of the proletariat against fascism.

By conducting a policy of economic nationalism (autarchy) and by seizing the greater part of the national income for the purpose of preparing for war, fascism undermines the whole economic life of the country and accentuates the economic war between the capitalist states. To the conflicts that arise among the bourgeoisie it lends the character of sharp and at times bloody collisions that undermine the stability of the fascist state power in the eyes of the people. A gov¬ ernment which murders its own followers, as happened in Germany on June 30 of last year, a fascist government against which another section of the fascist bourgeoisie is conducting an armed fight (the National-Socialist putsch in Austria and the violent attacks of indi¬ vidual fascist groups on the fascist governments in Poland, Bulgar- ia, Finland and other countries) - a government of this character cannot for long maintain its authority in the eyes of the broad mass of the petty bourgeoisie.

The working class must be able to take advantage of the antag¬ onisms and conflicts within the bourgeois camp, but it must not cherish the illusion that fascism will exhaust itself of its own ac¬ cord. Fascism will not collapse automatically. It is only the revolu¬ tionary activity of the working class which can help to take ad¬ vantage of the conflicts which inevitably arise within the bourgeois camp in order to undermine the fascist dictatorship and to over¬ throw it.

By destroying the relics of bourgeois democracy, by elevating open violence to a system of government, fascism shakes democrat¬ ic illusions and undermines the authority of the law in the eyes of the working people. This is particularly the case in countries such as Austria and Spain, where the workers have taken up arms against fascism. In Austria, the heroic struggle of the Schutzbund and the Communists, in spite of their defeat, shook the stability of the fas¬ cist dictatorship from the very outset. In Spain, the bourgeoisie did not succeed in putting the fascist muzzle on the working people. The armed struggles in Austria and Spain have resulted in ever wid¬ er masses of the working class coming to realize the necessity for a revolutionary class struggle.

Only such monstrous philistines, such lackeys of the bourgeoi¬ sie, as the superannuated theoretician of the Second International, Karl Kautsky, are capable of casting reproaches at the workers, to the effect that they should not have taken up arms in Austria and Spain. What would the working class movement in Austria and Spain look like today if the working class of these countries were guided by the treacherous counsels of the Kautskys? The working class would be experiencing profound demoralization in its ranks.

The school of civil war - Lenin says - does not leave the people unaffected. It is a harsh school, and its complete curriculum inevitably includes the victories of the counter¬ revolution, the debaucheries of enraged reactionaries, sav¬ age punishments meted out by the old governments to the rebels, etc. But only downright pedants and mentally de¬ crepit mummies can grieve over the fact that nations are en¬ tering this painful school; this school teaches the oppressed classes how to conduct civil war; it teaches how to bring about a victorious revolution; it concentrates in the masses of present-day slaves that hatred which is always harbored by the downtrodden, dull, ignorant slaves, and which leads those slaves who have become conscious of the shame of their slavery to the greatest historic exploits.

The triumph of fascism in Germany has, as we know, been fol¬ lowed by a new wave of the fascist offensive, which, in Austria, led to the provocation by Dollfuss, in Spain to the new onslaughts of the counter-revolutionaries on the revolutionary conquests of the masses, in Poland to the fascist reform of the constitution, while in France it spurred the armed detachments of the fascists to attempt a coup d’etat in February, 1934. But this victory, and the frenzy of the fascist dictatorship, called forth a counter-movement for a united proletarian front against fascism on an international scale.

The burning of the Reichstag, which served as a signal for the general attack of fascism on the working class, the seizure and spo¬ liation of the trade unions and the other working class organizations, the groans of the tortured anti-fascists rising from the vaults of the fascist barracks and concentration camps, are making it clear to the masses what has been the outcome of the reactionary, disruptive role played by the German Social-Democratic leaders, who rejected the proposal made by the Communists for a joint straggle against advancing fascism. These things are convincing the masses of the necessity of amalgamating all forces of the working class for the overthrow of fascism.

Hitler’s victory also provided a decisive stimulus for the crea¬ tion of a united front of the working class against fascism in France. Hitler’s victory not only aroused in the workers a fear of the fate that befell the German workers, not only kindled hatred for the exe¬ cutioners of their German class brothers, but also strengthened in them the determination never in any circumstances to allow in their country what happened to the working class in Germany.

The powerful urge toward the united front in all the capitalist countries shows that the lessons of defeat have not been in vain. The working class is beginning to act in a new way. The initiative shown by the Communist Party in the organization of the united front and the supreme self-sacrifice displayed by the Communists, by the rev¬ olutionary workers in the struggle against fascism, have resulted in an unprecedented increase in the prestige of the Communist Interna¬ tional. At the same time, a deep crisis is developing in the Second International, a crisis which is particularly noticeable and has par¬ ticularly accentuated since the bankruptcy of German Social- Democracy.

With ever greater ease are the Social-Democratic workers able to convince themselves that fascist Germany, with all its horrors and barbarities, is in the final analysis the result of the Social- Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie. The¬ se masses are coming ever more clearly to realize that the path along which the German Social-Democratic leaders led the proletar¬ iat must not be traversed again. Never has there been such ideologi¬ cal dissension in the camp of the Second International as at the pre¬ sent time. A process of differentiation is taking place in all the So¬ cial-Democratic Parties. Within their ranks two principal camps are forming: side by side with the existing camp of reactionary ele¬ ments, who are trying in every way to preserve the bloc between the Social-Democrats and the bourgeoisie, and who rabidly reject a united front with the Communists, there is beginning to form a camp of revolutionary elements who entertain doubts as to the cor¬ rectness of the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, who are in favor of the creation of a united front with the Com¬ munists, and who are increasingly coming to adopt the position of the revolutionary class struggle.

Thus fascism, which appeared as the result of the decline of the capitalist system, in the long mn acts as a factor of its further disin¬ tegration. Thus fascism, which has under taken to bury Marxism, the revolutionary movement of the working class, is, as a result of the dialectics of life and the class straggle, itself leading to the fur¬ ther development of the forces that are bound to serve as its grave¬ diggers, the grave-diggers of capitalism.

United Front of the Working Class against Fascism

Comrades, millions of workers and toilers of the capitalist countries ask the question: How can fascism be prevented from coming to power and how can fascism be overthrown after it has been victorious? To this the Communist International replies: The first thing that must be done, the thing with which to begin, is to form a united front, to establish unity of action of the workers in every factory, in every district, in every region, in every country, all over the world. Unity of action of the proletariat on a national and international scale is the mighty weapon which renders the working class capable not only of successful defense but also of successful counter-attack against fascism, against the class enemy.

Importance of the United Front

Is it not clear that joint action by the supporters of the parties and organizations of the two Internationals, the Communist and the Second International, would make it easier for the masses to repulse the fascist onslaught, and would heighten the political importance of the working class?

Joint action by the parties of both Internationals against fas¬ cism, however, would not be confined in its effects to influencing their present adherents, the Communists and Social-Democrats; it would also exert a powerful influence on the ranks of the Catholic, Anarchist and unorganized workers, even upon those who had tem¬ porarily become the victims of fascist demagogy.

Moreover, a powerful united front of the proletariat would exert tremendous influence on all other strata of the working people, on the peasantry, on the urban petty bourgeoisie, on the intelligentsia. A united front would inspire the wavering groups with faith in the strength of the working class.

But even this is not all. The proletariat of the imperialist coun¬ tries has possible allies not only in the toilers of its own countries but also in the oppressed nations of the colonies and semi-colonies. Inasmuch as the proletariat is split both nationally and international¬ ly, inasmuch as one of its parts supports the policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie, in particular its system of oppression in the colonies and semi-colonies, a barrier is put between the working class and the oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies, and the world anti-imperialist front is weakened. Every step on the road to unity of action in the direction of supporting the struggle for the liberation of the colonial peoples by the proletariat of the impe¬ rialist countries means transforming the colonies and semi-colonies into one of the most important reserves of the world proletariat.

If, finally, we bear in mind that international unity of action by the proletariat relies on the steadily growing strength of the prole- tarian state, the land of socialism, the Soviet Union, we see what broad perspectives are revealed by the realization of proletarian uni¬ ty of action on a national and international scale.

The establishment of unity of action by all sections of the work¬ ing class, irrespective of the party or organization to which they belong, is necessary even before the majority of the working class is united in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the victo¬ ry of the proletarian revolution.

Is it possible to realize this unity of action of the proletariat in the individual countries and throughout the whole world? Yes, it is. And it is possible at this very moment. The Communist International puts no conditions for unity of action except one, and that an elementary condition acceptable for all workers, viz., that the unity of action be directed against fascism, against the offensive of capital, against the threat of war, against the class enemy. This is our condition.

The Chief Arguments of the Opponents of the United Front

What objections can the opponents of the united front have and how do they voice their objections?

Some say: “To the Communists the slogan of the united front is merely a maneuver.” But if it is a maneuver, we reply, why don’t you expose the “Communist maneuver” by your honest participa¬ tion in the united front? We declare frankly: We want unity of ac¬ tion by the working class, so that the proletariat may grow strong in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, in order that while defending today its current interests against attacking capital, against fascism, the proletariat may reach a position tomorrow to create the prelimi¬ nary conditions for its final emancipation.

“The Communists attack us,” say others. But listen, we have repeatedly declared: We shall not attack anyone, whether persons, organizations or parties, standing for the united front of the working class against the class enemy. But at the same time it is our duty, in the interests of the proletariat and its cause, to criticize those per¬ sons, organizations and parties that hinder unity of action by the workers.

“We cannot form a united front with the Communists, since they have a different program,” says a third group. But you your¬ selves say that your program differs from the program of the bour- geois parties, and yet this did not and does not prevent you from entering into coalitions with these parties.

“The bourgeois-democratic parties are better allies against fas¬ cism than the Communists,” say the opponents of the united front and the advocates of coalition with the bourgeoisie. But what does Germany’s experience teach? Did not the Social-Democrats form a bloc with those “better” allies? And what were the results?

“If we establish a united front with the Communists, the petty bourgeoisie will take fright at the ‘Red danger’ and will desert to the fascists,” we hear it said quite frequently. But does the united front represent a threat to the peasants, small traders, artisans, work¬ ing intellectuals? No, the united front is a threat to the big bourgeoi¬ sie, the financial magnates, the Junkers and other exploiters, whose regime brings complete ruin to all these strata.

“Social-Democracy is for democracy, the Communists are for dictatorship; therefore we cannot form a united front with the Communists,” say some of the Social-Democratic leaders. But are we offering you now a united front for the purpose of proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat? We make no such proposal now.

“Let the Communists recognize democracy, let them come out in its defense, then we shall be ready for a united front.” To this we reply: We are adherents of Soviet democracy, the democracy of the toilers, the most consistent democracy in the world. But in the capi¬ talist countries we defend and shall continue to defend every inch of bourgeois-democratic liberties, which are being attacked by fascism and bourgeois reaction, because the interests of the class straggle of the proletariat so dictate.

“But the tiny Communist Parties do not add anything by partic¬ ipating in the united front brought about by the Labor Party,” say, for instance, the Labor leaders of Great Britain. Recall how the Aus¬ trian Social-Democratic leaders said the same things with reference to the small Austrian Communist Party. And what have events shown? It was not the Austrian Social-Democratic Party headed by Otto Bauer and Karl Renner that proved right, but the tiny Austrian Communist Party which at the right moment signaled the fascist danger in Austria and called upon the workers to straggle. The whole experience of the labor movement has shown that the Com¬ munists, with all their relative insignificance in numbers, are the motive power of the militant activity of the proletariat. Besides this, it must not be forgotten that the Communist Parties of Austria or Great Britain are not only the tens of thousands of workers who are adherents of the Party, but are parts of the world Communist movement, are Sections of the Communist International , the leading Party of which is the Party of a proletariat which has already achieved victory and rales over one-sixth of the globe.

“But the united front did not prevent fascism from being victo¬ rious in the Saar,” is another objection advanced by the opponents of the united front. Strange is the logic of these gentlemen! First they leave no stone unturned to ensure the victory of fascism and then they rejoice with malicious glee because the united front which they entered into only at the last moment did not lead to the victory of the workers.

“If we were to form a united front with the Communists, we should have to withdraw from the coalition, and reactionary and fascist parties would enter the government,” say the Social- Democratic leaders holding cabinet posts in various countries. Very well. Was not the German Social-Democratic Party in a coalition government? It was. Was not the Austrian Social-Democratic Party in office? It was. Were not the Spanish Socialists in the same gov¬ ernment as the bourgeoisie? They were, too. Did the participation of the Social-Democratic Parties in the bourgeois coalition govern¬ ments in these countries prevent fascism from attacking the prole¬ tariat? It did not. Consequently it is as clear as daylight that partici¬ pation of Social-Democratic ministers in bourgeois governments is not a barrier to fascism.

“The Communists act like dictators, they want to prescribe and dictate everything to us.” No. We prescribe nothing and dictate nothing. We only put forward our proposals, being convinced that if realized they will meet the interests of the working people. This is not only the right but the duty of all those acting in the name of the workers. You are afraid of the “dictatorship” of the Communists? Let us jointly submit all proposals to the workers, both yours and ours, jointly discuss them together with all the workers, and choose those proposals which are most useful to the cause of the working class.

Thus all these arguments against the united front will not stand the slightest criticism. They are rather the flimsy excuses of the re¬ actionary leaders of Social-Democracy, who prefer their united front with the bourgeoisie to the united front of the proletariat.

No. These excuses will not hold water. The international prole¬ tariat has experienced the suffering caused by the split in the work¬ ing class, and becomes more and more convinced that the united front, the unity of action of the proletariat on a national and inter¬ national scale, is at once necessary and perfectly possible.

Content and Forms of the United Front

What is and ought to be the basic content of the united front at the present stage? The defense of the immediate economic and po¬ litical interests of the working class, the defense of the working class against fascism, must form the starting point and main content of the united front in all capitalist countries.

We must not confine ourselves to bare appeals to struggle for the proletarian dictatorship. We must also find and advance those slogans and forms of straggle which arise from the vital needs of the masses, from the level of their fighting capacity at the present stage of development.

We must point out to the masses what they must do today to de¬ fend themselves against capitalist spoliation and fascist barbarity.

We must strive to establish the widest united front with the aid of joint action by workers’ organizations of different trends for the defense of the vital interests of the toiling masses. This means:

First, joint straggle really to shift the burden of the conse¬ quences of the crisis onto the shoulders of the ruling classes, the shoulders of the capitalists, landlords - in a word, to the shoulders of the rich.

Second, joint straggle against all forms of the fascist offensive, in defense of the gains and the rights of the toilers, against the de¬ struction of bourgeois-democratic liberties.

Third, joint straggle against the approaching danger of imperi¬ alist war, a straggle that will make the preparation of such a war more difficult.

We must tirelessly prepare the working class for a rapid change informs and methods of struggle when there is a change in the situ¬ ation. As the movement grows and the unity of the working class strengthens, we must go further, and prepare the transition from the defensive to the offensive against capital, steering toward the organ¬ ization of a mass political, strike. It must be an absolute condition of such a strike to draw into it the main trade unions of the countries concerned.

Communists, of course, cannot and must not for a moment abandon their own independent work of Communist education, or¬ ganization and mobilization of the masses. However, to ensure that the workers find the road of unity of action, it is necessary to strive at the same time both for short-term and for long-term agreements that provide for joint action with Social-Democratic Parties, re¬ formist trade unions and other organizations of the toilers against the class enemies of the proletariat. The chief stress in all this must be laid on developing mass action locally, to be carried out by the local organizations through local agreements.

While loyally carrying out the conditions of all agreements made with them, we shall mercilessly expose all sabotage of joint action on the part of persons and organizations participating in the united front. To any attempt to wreck the agreements — and such attempts may possibly be made - we shall reply by appealing to the masses while continuing untiringly to straggle for restoration of the broken unity of action.

It goes without saying that the practical realization of the united front will take various forms in various countries, depending upon the condition and character of the workers’ organizations and their political level, upon the situation in the particular country, upon the changes in progress in the international labor movement, etc.

These forms may include, for instance: coordinated joint action of the workers to be agreed upon from case to case on definite occa¬ sions, on individual demands or on the basis of a common platform; coordinated actions in individual enterprises or by whole industries ; coordinated actions on a local, regional, national or international scale ; coordinated actions for the organization of the economic straggle of the workers, carrying out of mass political actions, for the organization of joint self-defense against fascist attacks; coordinated action in rendering aid to political prisoners and their families, in the field of straggle against social reaction ; joint actions in the defense of the interests of the youth and women, in the field of the cooperative movement, cultural activity, sport, etc.

It would be insufficient to rest content with the conclusion of a pact providing for joint action and the formation of contact commit¬ tees from the parties and organizations participating in the united front, like those we have in France, for instance. That is only the first step. The pact is an auxiliary means for obtaining joint action, but by itself it does not constitute a united front. A contact commis- sion between the leaders of the Communist and Socialist Parties is necessary to facilitate the carrying out of joint action, but by itself it is far from adequate for a real development of the united front, for drawing the widest masses into the struggle against fascism.

The Communists and all revolutionary workers must strive for the formation of elected (and in the countries of fascist dictatorship — selected from the most authoritative participants in the united front movement) class bodies of the united front chosen irrespective of party, at the factories, among the unemployed, in the working class districts, among the small townsfolk and in the villages. Only such bodies will be able to include also in the united front move¬ ment the vast masses of unorganized toilers, and will be able to as¬ sist in developing mass initiative in the straggle against the capital¬ ist offensive of fascism and reaction, and on this basis create the necessary broad active rank and file of the united front and train hundreds and thousands of non-Party Bolsheviks in the capitalist countries.

Joint action of the organized workers is the beginning, the foundation. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the unor¬ ganized masses constitute the vast majority of workers. Thus, in France the number of organized workers - Communists, Socialists, trade union members of various trends - is altogether about one million, while the total number of workers is eleven million. In Great Britain there are approximately five million members of trade unions and parties of various trades. At the same time the total number of workers is fourteen million. In the United States of Amer¬ ica about five million workers are organized, while altogether there are thirty-eight million workers in that country. About the same ra¬ tio holds good for a number of other countries. In “normal” times this mass in the main does not participate in political life. But now this gigantic mass is getting into motion more and more, is being brought into political life, comes out in the political arena.

The creation of non-partisan class bodies is the best form for carrying out, extending and strengthening the united front among the rank and file of the masses. These bodies will likewise be the best bulwark against any attempt of the opponents of the united front to disrupt the established unity of action of the working class.

The Anti-Fascist People's Front

In mobilizing the mass of working people for the straggle against fascism, the formation of a wide, popular anti-fascist front on the basis of the proletarian united front is a particularly important task. The success of the whole straggle of the proletariat is closely bound up with establishing a fighting alliance between the proletariat on the one hand, and the toiling peasantry and basic mass of the urban petty bourgeoisie, who together form the majority of the population even in industrially developed countries, on the other.

In its agitation, fascism, desirous of winning these masses to its own side, tries to set the mass of working people in town and coun¬ tryside against the revolutionary proletariat, frightening the petty bourgeoisie with the bogey of the “Red peril.” We must turn this weapon against those who wield it and show the working peasants, artisans and intellectuals whence the real danger threatens. We must show concretely who it is that piles the burden of taxes and imposts on to the peasant and squeezes usurious interest out of him; who it is that, while owning the best land and every form of wealth, drives the peasant and his family from his plot of land and dooms him to unemployment and poverty. We must explain concretely, patiently and persistently who it is that rains the artisans and handicraftsmen with taxes, imposts, high rents and competition impossible for them to withstand; who it is that throws into the street and deprives of employment the wide masses of the working intelligentsia.

But this is not enough.

The fundamental, the most decisive thing in establishing the an¬ ti-fascist People’s Front is resolute action of the revolutionary pro¬ letariat in defense of the demands of these sections of the people, particularly the working peasantry — demands in line with the basic interests of the proletariat — and in the process of straggle combin¬ ing the demands of the working class with these demands.

In forming the anti-fascist People’s Front, a correct approach to those organizations and parties which have in them a considerable number of the working peasantry and the mass of the urban petty bourgeoisie is of great importance.

In the capitalist counties the majority of these parties and organ¬ izations, political as well as economic, are still under the influence of the bourgeoisie and follow it. The social composition of these parties and organizations is heterogeneous. They include big kulaks (rich peasants) side by side with landless peasants, big business men alongside of petty shopkeepers; but control is in the hands of the former, the agents of big capital. This obliges us to approach the different organizations in different ways, taking into consideration that not infrequently the bulk of the membership does not know anything about the real political character of its leadership. Under certain conditions, we can and must try to draw these parties and organizations or certain sections of them to the side of the anti¬ fascist People’s Front, despite their bourgeois leadership. Such, for instance, is today the situation in France with the Radical Party, in the United States with various farmers’ organizations, in Poland with the “Stronnictwo Ludowe,” in Yugoslavia with the Croatian Peasants’ Party, in Bulgaria with the Agrarian League, in Greece with the Agrarians, etc. But regardless of whether or not there is any chance of attracting these parties and organizations as a whole to the People’s Front, our tactics must under all circumstances be directed toward drawing the small peasants, artisans, handicraftsmen, etc., among their members into the anti-fascist People’s Front.

Hence, you see that in this field we must all along the line put an end to what frequently occurs in our practical work - neglect or contempt of the various organizations and parties of the peasants, artisans and the mass of petty bourgeoisie in the towns.

Key Questions of the United Front in Individual Countries

There are in every country certain key questions which at the present stage are agitating vast masses of the population and around which the struggle for the establishment of the united front must be developed. If these key points, or key questions, are properly grasped, it will ensure and accelerate the establishment of the united front.

The United States of America

Let us take, for example, so important a country in the capitalist world as the United States of America. There millions of people have been set into motion by the crisis. The program for the recov¬ ery of capitalism has collapsed. Vast masses are beginning to aban¬ don the bourgeois parties and are at present at the crossroads.

Embryo American fascism is trying to direct the disillusion¬ ment and discontent of these masses into reactionary fascist chan- nels. It is a peculiarity of the development of American fascism that at the present stage this fascism comes forward principally in the guise of an opposition to fascism, which it accuses of being an “un- American” tendency imported from abroad. In contradistinction to German fascism, which acts under anti-constitutional slogans, American fascism tries to portray itself as the custodian of the Con¬ stitution and “American democracy.” It does not yet represent a directly menacing force. But if it succeeds in penetrating to the wide masses who have become disillusioned with the old bourgeois par¬ ties it may become a serious menace in the very near future.

And what would the success of fascism in the United States in¬ volve? For the mass of working people it would, of course, involve the unrestrained strengthening of the regime of exploitation and the destruction of the working-class movement. And what would be the international significance of this success of fascism? As we know, the United States is not Hungary, or Finland, or Bulgaria, or Latvia. The success of fascism in the United States would vitally change the whole international situation.

Under these circumstances, can the American proletariat con¬ tent itself with organizing only its class-conscious vanguard, which is prepared to follow the revolutionary path? No.

It is perfectly obvious that the interests of the American prole¬ tariat demand that all its forces dissociate themselves from the capi¬ talist parties without delay. It must find in good time ways and suit¬ able forms to prevent fascism from winning over the wide mass of discontented working people. And here it must be said that under American conditions the creation of a mass party of working peo¬ ple, a “Workers’ and Farmers’ Party” might serve as such a suita¬ ble form. Such a party would be a specific form of the mass Peo¬ ple ’s Front in America and should be put in opposition to the parties of the trusts and the banks, and likewise to growing fascism. Such a party, of course, will be neither Socialist nor Communist. But it must be an anti-fascist party and must not be an anti-Communist Party. The program of this party must be directed against the banks, trusts and monopolies, against the principal enemies of the people, who are gambling on the woes of the latter. Such a party will corre¬ spond to its name only if it defends the urgent demands of the work¬ ing class, only if it fights for genuine social legislation, for unem¬ ployment insurance; only if it fights for land for the white and black sharecroppers and for their liberation from debt burdens; only if it tries to secure the cancellation of the farmers’ indebtedness; only if it fights for equal status for Negroes; only if it defends the demands of the war veterans and the interests of members of the liberal pro¬ fessions, small businessmen and artisans. And so on.

It goes without saying that such a party will fight for the elec¬ tion of its own candidates to local government, to the state legisla¬ tures, to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Our comrades in the United States acted rightly in taking the in¬ itiative for the creation of such a party. But they still have to take effective measures in order to make the creation of such a party the cause of the masses themselves. The question of forming a “Work¬ ers’ and Farmers’ Party,” and its program, should be discussed at mass meetings of the people. We should develop the most wide¬ spread movement for the creation of such a party, and take the lead in it. In no case must the initiative of organizing the party be al¬ lowed to pass to elements desirous of utilizing the discontent of the millions who have become disillusioned in both the bourgeois par¬ ties, Democratic and Republican, in order to create a “third party” in the United States, as an anti-Communist party, a party directed against the revolutionary movement.

Great Britain

In Great Britain, as a result of the mass action of the British workers, Mosley’s fascist organization has for the time being been pushed into the background. But we must not close our eyes to the fact that the so-called “National Government” is passing a number of reactionary measures directed against the working class, as a re¬ sult of which conditions are being created in Great Britain, too, which will make it easier for the bourgeoisie, if necessary, to pass to a fascist regime. At the present stage, fighting the fascist danger in Great Britain means primarily fighting the “National Government” and its reactionary measures, fighting the offensive of capital, fighting for the demands of the unemployed, fighting against wage reductions and for the repeal of all those laws with the help of which the British bourgeoisie is lowering the standard of living of the masses.

But the growing hatred of the working class for the “National Government” is uniting increasingly large numbers under the slogan of the formation of a new Labor government in Great Britain. Can the Communists ignore this frame of mind of the masses, who still retain faith in a Labor government? No, comrades. We must find a way of approaching these masses. We tell them openly, as did the Thirteenth Congress of the British Communist Party, that we Com¬ munists are in favor of a Soviet government as the only form of government capable of emancipating the workers from the yoke of capital. But you want a Labor government? Very well. We have been and are fighting hand in hand with you for the defeat of the “National Government.” We are prepared to support your fight for the formation of a new Labor government, in spite of the fact that both the previous Labor governments failed to fulfill the promises made to the working class by the Labor Party. We do not expect this government to carry out socialist measures. But we shall present it with the demand , in the name of millions of workers, that it defend the most essential economic and political interests of the working class and of all working people. Let us jointly discuss a common program of such demands, and let us achieve that unity of action which the proletariat requires in order to repel the reactionary offen¬ sive of the “National Government,” the attack of capital and fascism and the preparations for a new war. On this basis, the British com¬ rades are prepared at the forthcoming parliamentary elections to cooperate with branches of the Labor Party against the “National Government,” and also against Lloyd George, who is trying in his own way in the interests of the British bourgeoisie to lure the mass¬ es into following him against the cause of the working class.

This position of the British Communists is a correct one. It will help them to set up a militant united front with the millions of members of the British trade unions and Labor Party.

While always remaining in the front ranks of the fighting prole¬ tariat, and pointing out to the masses the only right path — the path of struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of the rule of the bour¬ geoisie and the establishment of a Soviet government — the Com¬ munists, in defining their immediate political aims, must not attempt to leap over those necessary stages of the mass movement in the course of which the working class by its own experience outlives its illusions and passes over to Communism.

France

France, as we know, is a country in which the working class is setting an example to the whole international proletariat of how to fight fascism. The French Communist Party is setting an example to all the sections of the Comintern of how the tactics of the united front should be applied; the Socialist workers are setting an example of what the Social-Democratic workers of other capitalist countries should now be doing in the fight against fascism. The significance of the anti-fascist demonstration attended by half a million people in Paris on July 14 of this year, and of the numerous demonstrations in other French cities, is tremendous. This is not merely a movement of a united working class front; it is the beginning of a wide general front of the people against fascism in France.

This united front movement enhances the confidence of the working class in its own forces; it strengthens its consciousness of the leading role it is playing in relation to the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and the intelligentsia; it extends the influ¬ ence of the Communist Party among the mass of the working class and therefore makes the proletariat stronger in the fight against fas¬ cism. It is arousing in good time the vigilance of the masses in re¬ gard to the fascist danger. And it will serve as an infectious example for the development of the anti-fascist straggle in other capitalist countries, and will exercise a heartening influence on the proletari¬ ans of Germany, pressed down by the fascist dictatorship.

The victory, needless to say, is a big one, but still it does not decide the issue of the anti-fascist straggle. The overwhelming ma¬ jority of the French people are undoubtedly opposed to fascism. But the bourgeoisie is able by armed force to violate the popular will. The fascist movement is continuing to develop absolutely freely, with the active support of monopoly capital, the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, the general staff of the French army and the reac¬ tionary leaders of the Catholic church - that stronghold of all reac¬ tion. The most powerful fascist organization, the Croix de Feu, now commands 300,000 armed men, the backbone of which consists of 60,000 officers of the reserve. It holds strong positions in the police, the gendarmerie, the army, the air force and in all government offic¬ es. The recent municipal elections have shown that in France it is not only the revolutionary forces that are growing, but also the forc¬ es of fascism. If fascism succeeds in penetrating widely among the peasantry, and in securing the support of one section of the army, while the other section remains neutral, the masses of the French working people will not be able to prevent the fascists from coming to power. Comrades, do not forget the organizational weakness of the French labor movement, which makes easier the success of the fascist attack. The working class and all anti-fascists in France have no grounds for resting content with the results already achieved.

What are the tasks facing the working class in France?

First, to establish the united front not only in the political sphere, but also in the economic sphere in order to organize the struggle against the capitalist offensive, and by its pressure to smash the resistance offered to the united front by the leaders of the re¬ formist Confederation of Labor.

Second, to achieve trade union unity in France - united trade unions based on the class struggle.

Third, to enlist in the anti-fascist movement the wide mass of the peasants and petty bourgeoisie, devoting special attention in the program of the anti-fascist People’s Front to their urgent demands.

Fourth, to strengthen organizationally and extend further the anti-fascist movement which has already developed, by the wide¬ spread creation of elected bodies of the anti-fascist People’s Front, elected irrespective of parties and whose influence will extend to wider masses than those in the present parties and organizations of working people in France.

Fifth, to force the disbanding and disarming of the fascist or¬ ganizations, as being organizations of conspirators against the re¬ public and agents of Hitler in France.

Sixth, to secure that the state apparatus, army and police shall be purged of the conspirators who are preparing a fascist coup.

Seventh, to develop the struggle against the leaders of the reac¬ tionary cliques of the Catholic church, as one of the most important strongholds of French fascism.

Eighth, to link up the army with the anti-fascist movement by creating in its ranks committees for the defense of the republic and the constitution, directed against those who want to utilize the army for an anti-constitutional coup d’etat; not to allow the reactionary forces in France to wreck the Franco-Soviet pact, which defends the cause of peace against the aggression of German fascism.

And if in France the anti-fascist movement leads to the for¬ mation of a government which will carry on a real struggle against French fascism - not in words but in deeds - and which will carry out the program of demands of the anti-fascist People’s Front, the Communists, while remaining the irreconcilable foes of every bour¬ geois government and supporters of a Soviet government, will, nev- ertheless, in face of the growing fascist danger, be prepared to sup¬ port such a government.

The United Front and the Fascist Mass Organizations

Comrades, the fight for the establishment of the united front in countries where the fascists are in power is perhaps the most im¬ portant problem facing us. In such countries, of course, the fight is carried on under far more difficult conditions than in countries with legal labor movements. Nevertheless, all the conditions exist in fas¬ cist countries for the development of a real anti-fascist People’s Front in the struggle against the fascist dictatorship, since the So¬ cial-Democratic, Catholic and other workers, in Germany, for in¬ stance, are able to realize more directly the need for a joint struggle with the Communists against the fascist dictatorship. Wide strata of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry, having already tasted the bitter fruits of fascist rale, are growing increasingly discontented and dis¬ illusioned, which makes it easier to enlist them in the anti-fascist People’s Front.

But the principal task in fascist countries, particularly in Ger¬ many and Italy, where fascism has managed to gain a mass basis and has forced the workers and other toilers into its organizations, consists in skillfully combining the fight against the fascist dictator¬ ship from without with its undermining from within, inside the fas¬ cist mass organizations and bodies. Special methods and means of approach, suited to the concrete conditions prevailing in these coun¬ tries must be learned, mastered and applied, so as to facilitate the rapid disintegration of the mass basis of fascism and to prepare the way for the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship. We must learn, master and apply this, and not only shout “Down with Hitler!” and “Down with Mussolini!” Yes, learn, master and apply.

This is a difficult and complex task. It is all the more difficult because our experience in successfully combating fascist dictatorship is extremely limited. Our Italian comrades, for instance, have already been fighting under the conditions of a fascist dictatorship for about thirteen years. Nevertheless, they have not yet succeeded in developing a real mass straggle against fascism, and therefore they have unfortunately been little able in this respect to help the Communist Parties in other fascist countries by their positive experience.

The German and Italian Communists, and the Communists in other fascist countries, as well as the Communist youth, have dis¬ played prodigious valor; they have made and are daily making tre¬ mendous sacrifices. We all bow our heads in honor of such heroism and sacrifices. But heroism alone is not enough. Heroism must be combined with day-to-day work among the masses, with concrete straggle against fascism, so as to achieve the most tangible results in this sphere. In our straggle against fascist dictatorship it is partic¬ ularly dangerous to confuse the wish with the fact. We must base ourselves on the facts, on the actual concrete situation.

What is now the actual situation in Germany, for instance?

The masses are becoming increasingly discontented and disillu¬ sioned with the policy of the fascist dictatorship, and this even as¬ sumes the form of partial strikes and other actions. In spite of all its efforts, fascism has failed to win over politically the basic masses of the workers; it is losing even its former supporters, and will lose them more and more in the future. Nevertheless, we must realize that the workers who are convinced of the possibility of overthrow¬ ing the fascist dictatorship, and who are already prepared to fight for it actively, are still in the minority - they consist of us, the Communists, and the revolutionary section of the Social- Democratic workers. But the majority of the toilers have not yet become aware of the real, concrete possibilities and methods of overthrowing this dictatorship and still have a waiting attitude. This we must bear in mind when we outline our tasks in the straggle against fascism in Germany, and when we seek, study and apply special methods of approach for the undermining and overthrow of the fascist dictatorship in Germany.

In order to be able to strike a telling blow at the fascist dictator¬ ship, we must first find out what is its most vulnerable point. What is the Achilles’ heel of the fascist dictatorship? Its social basis. The latter is extremely heterogeneous. It is made up of various classes and various strata of society. Fascism has proclaimed itself the sole representative of all classes and strata of the population: the manu¬ facturer and the worker, the millionaire and the unemployed, the Junker and the small peasant, the big capitalist and the artisan. It pretends to defend the interests of all these strata, the interests of the nation. But since it is a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, fascism must inevitably come into conflict with its mass social basis, all the more since, under the fascist dictatorship, the class contradictions between the pack of financial magnates and the overwhelming ma¬ jority of the people are brought out in greatest relief.

We can lead the masses to a decisive straggle for the over throw of the fascist dictatorship only by getting the workers who have been forced into the fascist organizations, or have joined them through ignorance, to take part in the most elementary movements for the defense of their economic, political and cultural interests. It is for this reason that the Communists must work in these organiza¬ tions, as the best champions of the day-to-day interests of the mass of members, bearing in mind that as the workers belonging to these organizations begin more and more frequently to demand their rights and defend their interests, they inevitably come into conflict with the fascist dictatorship.

In defending the urgent and, at first, the most elementary interests of the working people in town and countryside, it is comparatively easier to find a common language not only with the conscious anti¬ fascists, but also with those of the working people who are still sup¬ porters of fascism, but are disillusioned and dissatisfied with its poli¬ cy, and are grumbling and seeking an occasion for expressing their discontent. In general we must realize that all our tactics in countries with a fascist dictatorship must be of such a character as not to re¬ pulse the rank-and-file supporters of fascism, not to throw them once more into the arms of fascism, but to deepen the gulf between the fascist leaders and the mass of disillusioned rank-and-file followers of fascism drawn from the working sections of society.

We need not be dismayed, comrades, if the people mobilized around these day-to-day interests consider themselves either indif¬ ferent to politics or even followers of fascism. The important thing for us is to draw them into the movement, which, although it may not at first proceed openly under the slogans of the straggle against fascism, is already objectively an anti-fascist movement putting these masses into opposition to the fascist dictatorship.

Experience teaches us that the view that it is generally impossi¬ ble , in countries with a fascist dictatorship, to come out legally or semi-legally, is harmful and incorrect. To insist on this point of view means to fall into passivity, and to renounce real mass work altogether. True, under the conditions of a fascist dictatorship, to find forms and methods of legal or semi-legal action is a difficult and complex problem. But, as in many other questions, the path is indicated by life itself and by the initiative of the masses them- selves, which have already provided us with a number of examples that must be generalized and applied in an organized and effective manner.

We must very resolutely put an end to the tendency to underes¬ timate work in the fascist mass organizations. In Italy, in Germany and in a number of other fascist countries, our comrades concealed their passivity, and frequently even their direct refusal to work in the fascist mass organizations, by putting forward work in the facto¬ ries as against work in the fascist mass organizations. In reality, however, it was just this mechanical distinction which led to work being conducted very feebly, and sometimes not at all, both in the fascist mass organizations and in the factories.

Yet it is particularly important that Communists in the fascist countries should be wherever the masses are to be found. Fascism has deprived the workers of their own legal organizations. It has forced the fascist organizations upon them, and it is there that the masses are - by compulsion, or to some extent voluntarily. These mass fascist organizations can and must be made our legal or semi¬ legal field of action, where we can meet the masses. They can and must be made our legal or semi-legal starting point for the defense of the day-to-day interests of the masses. To utilize these possibili¬ ties, Communists must win elected positions in the fascist mass or¬ ganizations, for contact with the masses, and must rid themselves once and for all of the prejudice that such activity is unseemly and unworthy of a revolutionary worker.

In Germany, for instance, there is a system of so-called “shop delegates.” But where is it stated that we must leave the fascists a monopoly in these organizations? Cannot we try to unite the Com¬ munist, Social-Democratic, Catholic and other anti-fascist workers in the factories so that when the list of “shop delegates” is voted upon, the known agents of the employers may be struck off and oth¬ er candidates, enjoying the confidence of the workers, inserted in their stead? Practice has already shown that this is possible.

And does not practice also go to show that it is possible, jointly with the Social-Democratic and other discontented workers, to de¬ mand that the “shop delegates” really defend the interests of the workers?

Take the “Labor Front” in Germany, or the fascist trade unions in Italy. Is it not possible to demand that the functionaries of the “Labor Front” be elected, and not appointed; to insist that the lead- ing bodies of the local groups report to meetings of the members of the organizations; to address these demands, following a decision by the group, to the employer, to the “guardian of labor,” to higher bodies of the “Labor Front”? This is possible, provided the revolu¬ tionary workers actually work within the “Labor Front” and try to obtain posts in it.

Similar methods of work are possible and essential in other mass fascist organizations also — in the Hitler Youth Leagues, in the sports organizations, in the Kraft durch Freude organizations, in the Doppo Lavoro in Italy, in the cooperatives and so forth.

Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until with the aid of the famous Trojan horse it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp.

We revolutionary workers, it appears to me, should not be shy about using the same tactics with regard to our fascist foe, who is defending himself against the people with the help of a living wall of his cutthroats.

He who fails to understand the necessity of using such tactics in the case of fascism, he who regards such an approach as “humiliat¬ ing,” may be a most excellent comrade, but if you will allow me to say so, he is a windbag and not a revolutionary, he will be unable to lead the masses to the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship.

The mass movement for a united front, starting with defense of the most elementary needs, and changing its forms and watchwords of the straggle as the latter extends and grows, is growing up out¬ side and inside the fascist organizations in Germany, Italy and the other countries in which fascism possesses a mass basis. It will be the battering ram which will shatter the fortress of the fascist dicta¬ torship that at present seems impregnable to many.

The United Front in the Countries Where the Social-Democrats Are in Office

The straggle for the establishment of the united front raises also another very important problem, the problem of the united front in countries where Social-Democratic governments, or coalition governments in which Socialists participate, are in power, as, for instance, in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and Belgium.

Our attitude of absolute opposition to Social-Democratic gov¬ ernments, which are governments of compromise with the bour¬ geoisie, is well known. But this notwithstanding, we do not regard the existence of a Social-Democratic government or a coalition government formed by a Social-Democratic party with bourgeois parties as an insurmountable obstacle for establishing a united front with the Social-Democrats on definite issues. We believe that in such a case too a united front for the defense of the vital interests of the toiling people and in the struggle against fascism is quite possi¬ ble and necessary. It stands to reason that in countries where repre¬ sentatives of Social-Democratic parties take part in the government, the Social-Democratic leadership offers the strongest resistance to the proletarian united front. This is quite comprehensible. After all, they want to show the bourgeoisie that they, better and more skill¬ fully than anyone else, can keep the discontented working masses under control and prevent them from falling under the influence of Communism. The fact, however, that Social-Democratic ministers are opposed to the proletarian united front can by no means justify a situation in which the Communists do nothing to establish a united front with the proletariat.

Our comrades in the Scandinavian countries often follow the line of least resistance, confining themselves to propaganda expos¬ ing the Social-Democratic governments. This is a mistake. In Den¬ mark, for example, the Social-Democratic leaders have been in the government for the past ten years, and for ten years day in and day out the Communists have been reiterating that it is a bourgeois capi¬ talist government. We have to assume that the Danish workers are acquainted with this propaganda. The fact that a considerable ma¬ jority nevertheless vote for the Social-Democratic government party only goes to show that the Communists’ exposure of the govern¬ ment by means of propaganda is insufficient. It does not prove, however, that these hundreds of thousands of workers are satisfied with all the government measures of the Social-Democratic minis¬ ters. No, they are not satisfied with the fact that by its so-called cri¬ sis “agreement” the Social-Democratic government assists the big capitalists and landlords and not the workers and poor peasants. They are not satisfied with the decree issued by the government in January, 1933, which deprived the workers of the right to strike.

They are not satisfied with the project of the Social-Democratic leadership for a dangerous anti-democratic electoral reform (which would considerably reduce the number of deputies). I shall hardly be in error, comrades, if I state that 99 per cent of the Danish work¬ ers do not approve of these political steps taken by the Social- Democratic leaders and ministers.

Is it not possible for the Communists to call upon the trade un¬ ions and Social-Democratic organizations of Denmark to discuss some of these burning issues, to express their opinions on them and jointly come out for a proletarian united front with the object of obtaining the workers’ demands? In October of last year, when our Danish comrades appealed to the trade unions to act against the re¬ duction of unemployment relief and for the democratic rights of the trade unions, about 100 local trade union organizations joined the united front.

In Sweden a Social-Democratic government is in power for the third time, but the Swedish Communists have for a long time refused to apply the united front tactics in practice. Why? Was it because they were opposed to the united front? Not, in principle, of course; they were for united front, for a united front in general, but they failed to understand in what circumstances, on what questions, in defense of what demands a proletarian united front could be successfully estab¬ lished, where and how to “hook on.” A few months before the for¬ mation of the Social-Democratic government, the Social-Democratic Party advanced during the elections a platform containing a number of demands which would have been the very thing to include in the platform of the proletarian united front. For example, the slogans, “Against customs duties ,” “Against militarization ,” “Put an end to the policy of delay in the question of unemployment insurance ,” “Grant adequate old age pensions ,” “Prohibit organizations like the ‘Munch ’ corps ” (a fascist organization), “Down with class legislation against the unions demanded by the bourgeois parties.”

Over a million of the working people of Sweden voted in 1932 for these demands advanced by the Social-Democrats, and wel¬ comed in 1933 the formation of a Social-Democratic government in the hope that now these demands would be realized. What could have been more natural in such a situation and what would have better suited the mass of the workers than an appeal of the Com¬ munist Party to all Social-Democratic and trade union organizations to take joint action to secure these demands advanced by the Social-Democratic Party?

If we had succeeded in really mobilizing wide masses and in welding the Social-Democratic and Communist workers’ organiza¬ tions into a united front to secure these demands of the Social- Democrats themselves, there is no doubt that the working class of Sweden would have gained thereby. The Social-Democratic minis¬ ters of Sweden, of course, would not have been very happy over it, for in that case the government would have been compelled to meet at least some of these demands. At any rate, what has happened now, when the government instead of abolishing has raised some of the duties, instead of restricting militarism has enlarged the military budget, and instead of rejecting any legislation directed against the trade unions has itself introduced such a bill in Parliament, would not have happened. True, on the last issue the Communist Party of Sweden carried through a good mass campaign in the spirit of the proletarian united front with the result that in the end even the So¬ cial-Democratic parliamentary fraction felt constrained to vote against the government bill, and for the time it has fallen through.

The Norwegian Communists were right in calling upon the or¬ ganizations of the Labor Party to organize joint May Day demon¬ strations and in putting forward a number of demands which in the main coincide with the demands contained in the election platform of the Norwegian Labor Party. Although this step in favor of a unit¬ ed front was poorly prepared and the leadership of the Norwegian Labor Party opposed it, united front demonstrations took place in thirty localities.

Formerly many Communists used to be afraid that it would be opportunism on their part if they did not counter every partial de¬ mand of the Social-Democrats by demands of their own which were twice as radical. That was a naive mistake. If Social-Democrats, for instance, demanded the dissolution of the fascist organizations, there was no reason why we should add: “and the disbanding of the state police” (a demand which would be expedient under different circumstances). We should rather tell the Social-Democratic work¬ ers: We are ready to accept these demands of your Party as demands of the proletarian united front and are ready to fight to the end for their realization. Let us join hands for the battle.

In Czechoslovakia also certain demands advanced by the Czech and German Social-Democrats, and by the reformist trade unions can and should be utilized for establishing a united front of the working class. When the Social-Democrats, for instance, demand work for the unemployed, or the abolition of the laws restricting municipal self-government, as they have done ever since 1927, the¬ se demands should be made concrete in each locality, in each dis¬ trict, and a fight should be carried on hand in hand with the Social- Democratic organizations for their actual realization. Or, when the Social-Democratic Parties thunder “in general terms” against the agents of fascism in the state apparatus, the proper thing to do is in each particular district to drag into the light of day the particular local fascist spokesmen, and together with the Social-Democratic workers demand their removal from government employ.

In Belgium the leaders of the Socialist Party, with Emile Vandervelde at their head, have entered a coalition government. This “success” they have achieved thanks to their lengthy and ex¬ tensive campaigns for two main demands: (1) the abolition of the emergency decree, and (2) the realization of the de Man plan. The first issue is very important. The preceding government issued 150 reactionary emergency decrees, which are an extremely heavy bur¬ den on the working people. It was proposed to repeal them at once. Such was the demand of the Socialist Party. But have many of these emergency decrees been repealed by the new government? It has not rescinded a single one. It has only mollified somewhat a few of the emergency decrees in order to make a sort of “token payment” in settlement of the generous promises of the Belgian Socialist lead¬ ers (like that “token dollar” which some European powers proffered the U.S.A. in payment of the millions due as war debts).

As regards the realization of the widely advertised de Man plan, the matter has taken a turn quite unexpected by the Social- Democratic masses. The Socialist ministers announced that the eco¬ nomic crisis must be overcome first, and only those provisions of the de Man plan should be carried into effect which improve the position of the industrial capitalists and the banks; only thereafter would it be possible to adopt measures to improve the conditions of the workers. But how long must the workers wait for their share in the “benefits” promised them in the de Man plan? The Belgian bankers have already had their veritable shower of gold. The Bel¬ gian franc has been devaluated 28 per cent; by this manipulation the bankers were able to pocket 4,500,000,000 francs as their spoils at the expense of the wage earners and the savings of the small deposi- tors. But how does this tally with the contents of the de Man plan? Why, if we are to believe the letter of the plan, it promises to “ pros¬ ecute monopolist abuses and speculative manipulations.”

On the basis of the de Man plan, the government has appointed a commission to supervise the banks. But the commission consists of bankers who can now gaily and light-heartedly supervise themselves.

The de Man plan also promises a number of other good things, such as a “ shortening of the working davf “standardization of wag¬ es ,” “a minimum wage,” “organization of an all-embracing system of social insurance,” “greater convenience in living conditions through new housing construction” and so forth. These are all demands which we Communists can support. We should go to the labor organizations of Belgium and say to them: The capitalists have already received enough and even too much. Let us demand that the Social- Democratic ministers now carry out the promises they made to the workers. Let us get together in a united front for the successful de¬ fense of our interests. Minister Vandervelde, we support the demands on behalf of the workers contained in your platform; but we tell you frankly that we take these demands seriously, that we want action and not empty words, and therefore are uniting hundreds of thousands of workers to struggle for these demands!

Thus, in countries having Social-Democratic governments, the Communists, by utilizing suitable individual demands taken from the platforms of the Social-Democratic Parties themselves and from the election promises of the Social-Democratic ministers as the starting point for achieving joint action with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations, can afterwards more easily develop a campaign for the establishment of a united front on the basis of oth¬ er mass demands in the struggle against the capitalist offensive, against fascism and the threat of war.

It must further be borne in mind that in general joint action with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations requires from Communists serious and substantiated criticism of Social- Democracy as the ideology and practice of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and untiring, comradely explanation for the Social- Democratic workers of the program and slogans of Communism. In countries having Social-Democratic governments this task is of par¬ ticular importance in the straggle for the united front.

The Struggle for Trade Union Unity

Comrades, a most important stage in the consolidation of the united front must be the establishment of national and international trade union unity.

As you know, the splitting tactics of the reformist leaders were applied most virulently in the trade unions. The reason for this is clear. Here their policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie found its practical culmination directly in the factories, to the detri¬ ment of the vital interests of the working class. This, of course, gave rise to sharp criticism and resistance on the part of the revolutionary workers under the leadership of the Communists. That is why the struggle between Communism and reformism raged most fiercely in the trade unions.

The more difficult and complicated the situation became for capitalism, the more reactionary was the policy of the leaders of the Amsterdam unions and the more aggressive their measures against all opposition elements within the trade unions. Even the establish¬ ment of the fascist dictatorship in Germany and the intensified capi¬ talist offensive in all capitalist countries failed to diminish this ag¬ gressiveness. Is it not a characteristic fact that in 1933 alone, most disgraceful circulars were issued in Great Britain, Holland, Belgium and Sweden, for the expulsion of Communists and revolutionary workers from the trade unions?

In Great Britain in 1933 a circular was issued prohibiting the local branches of the trade unions from joining the anti-war or other revolutionary organizations. That was a prelude to the notorious “Black Circular” of the Trade Union Congress General Council, which outlawed any Trades Council admitting delegates “directly or indirectly associated with Communist organizations.” What is there left to be said of the leadership of the German trade unions, which applied unprecedented repressive measures against the revolution¬ ary elements in the trade unions?

Yet we must base our tactics, not on the behavior of individual leaders of the Amsterdam unions, no matter what difficulties their behavior may cause the class struggle, but primarily on the question of where the masses of workers are to be found. And here we must openly declare that work in the trade unions is the weakest spot in the work of all Communist Parties. We must bring about a real change for the better in trade union work and make the question of straggle for trade union unity the central issue.

“What constitutes the strength of Social-Democracy in the West?” asked Comrade Stalin ten years ago. Answering this ques¬ tion, he said:

The fact that it has its support in the trade unions.

What constitutes the weakness of our Communist Par¬ ties in the West?

The fact that they are not yet linked with the trade un¬ ions, and that certain elements within the Communist Par¬ ties do not wish to be linked with them.

Hence, the main task of the Communist Parties of the West at the present time is to develop the campaign for uni¬ ty in the trade union movement and to bring it to its con¬ summation; to see to it that all Communists, without excep¬ tion, join the trade unions, there to work systematically and patiently to strengthen the solidarity of the working class in its fight against capital, and thus attain the conditions that will enable the Communist Parties to rely upon the trade unions.

Has this precept of Comrade Stalin’s been followed? No, com¬ rades, it has not.

Ignoring the urge of the workers to join the trade unions, and faced with the difficulties of working within the Amsterdam unions, many of our comrades decided to pass by this complicated task. They invariably spoke of an organizational crisis in the Amsterdam unions, of the workers deserting the unions, but failed to notice that after some decline at the beginning of the world economic crisis, these unions later began to grow again. The peculiarity of the trade union movement has been precisely the fact that the attacks of the bourgeoisie on trade union rights, the attempts in a number of coun¬ tries to unify the trade unions (Poland, Hungary, etc.), the curtail¬ ment of social insurance and the cutting of wages, forced the work- ers, notwithstanding the lack of resistance displayed by the reform¬ ist trade union leaders, to rally still more closely around these un¬ ions, because the workers wanted and still want to see in the trade unions the militant champions of their vital class interests. This ex¬ plains the fact that most of the Amsterdam unions in France, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Flolland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc., have grown in membership during the last few years. The American Fed¬ eration of Labor has also considerably increased its membership in the past two years.

Flad the German comrades better understood the problem of trade union work of which Comrade Thaelmann spoke on many occasions, there would undoubtedly have been a better situation in the trade unions than was the case at the time the fascist dictatorship was established. At the end of 1932 only about ten per cent of the Party members belonged to the free trade unions. This in spite of the fact that after the Sixth Congress of the Comintern the Communists took the lead in quite a number of strikes. Our comrades used to write in the press of the need to assign 90 per cent of our forces to work in the trade unions, but in reality activity was concentrated exclusively around the revolutionary trade union opposition which actually sought to replace the trade unions. And how about the peri¬ od after Hitler’s seizure of power? For two years many of our com¬ rades stubbornly and systematically opposed the correct slogan of fighting for the re-establishment of the free unions.

I could cite similar examples about almost every other capitalist country.

But we already have the first serious achievements to our credit in the struggle for trade union unity in European countries. I have in mind little Austria, where on the initiative of the Communist Party a basis has been created for an illegal trade union movement. After the February battles the Social-Democrats, with Otto Bauer at the head, threw out the watch word: “The free unions can be re¬ established only after the downfall of fascism.” The Communists applied themselves to the task of re-establishing the trade unions. Each phase of that work was a bit of the living united front of the Austrian proletariat. The successful re-establishment of the free trade unions in underground conditions was a serious blow to fas¬ cism. The Social-Democrats were at the parting of the ways. Some of them tried to negotiate with the government. Others, seeing our successes, created their own parallel illegal trade unions. But there could be only one road: either capitulation to fascism, or toward trade union unity through joint struggle against fascism. Under mass pressure, the wavering leadership of the parallel unions creat¬ ed by the former trade union leaders decided to agree to amalgama¬ tion. The basis of this amalgamation is irreconcilable straggle against the offensive of capitalism and fascism and the guarantee of trade union democracy. We welcome this fact of the amalgamation of the trade unions, which is the first of its kind since the formal split of the trade unions after the war and is therefore of interna¬ tional importance.

In France the united front has unquestionably served as a mighty impetus for achieving trade union unity. The leaders of the General Confederation of Labor have hampered and still hamper in every way the realization of unity, countering the main issue of the class policy of the trade unions by raising issues of a subordinate and secondary or formal character. An unquestionable success in the straggle for trade union unity has been the establishment of sin¬ gle unions on a local scale, embracing, in the case of the railroad workers, for instance, approximately three-quarters of the member¬ ship of both trade unions.

We are definitely for the re-establishment of trade union unity in each country and on an international scale. We are for one union in each industry.

We are for one federation of trade unions in each country. We are for one international federation of trade unions organized ac¬ cording to industries.

We stand for one international of trade unions based on the class struggle. We are for united class trade unions as one of the major bulwarks of the working class against the offensive of capital and fascism. Our only condition for uniting the trade unions is: Struggle against capital, against fascism and for internal trade un¬ ion democracy.

Time does not stand still. To us the question of trade union uni¬ ty on a national as well as international scale is a question of the great task of uniting our class in mighty, single trade union organi¬ zations against the class enemy.

We welcome the fact that on the eve of May First of this year the Red International of Labor Unions addressed the Amsterdam International with the proposal to consider jointly the question of the terms, methods and forms of uniting the world trade union movement. The leaders of the Amsterdam International rejected that proposal, using the outworn pretext that unity in the trade union movement is possible only within the Amsterdam International, which, by the way, includes almost none but trade unions in a num¬ ber of European countries.

But the Communists working in the trade unions must continue to straggle tirelessly for the unity of the trade union movement. The task of the Red trade unions and the R.I.L.U. is to do all in their power to hasten the achievement of a joint straggle of all trade un¬ ions against the offensive of capital and fascism, and to bring about unity in the trade union movement, despite the stubborn resistance of the reactionary leaders of the Amsterdam International. The Red trade unions and the R.I.L.U. must receive our unstinted support along this line.

In countries where small Red trade unions exist, we recommend working for their inclusion in the big reformist unions, but demand¬ ing the right to defend their views and the reinstatement of expelled members. But in countries where big Red trade unions exist parallel with big reformist trade unions, we must work for the convening of unity congresses on the basis of a platform of straggle against the capitalist offensive and the guarantee of trade union democracy.

It should be stated categorically that any Communist worker, any revolutionary worker who does not belong to the mass trade union of his industry, who does not fight to transform the reformist trade union into a real class trade union organization, who does not fight for trade union unity on the basis of the class straggle, such a Communist worker, such a revolutionary worker, does not dis¬ charge his elementary proletarian duty.

The United Front and the Youth

I have already pointed out the role which the drawing of the youth into the fascist organizations played in the victory of fascism. In speaking of the youth, we must state frankly that we have ne¬ glected our task of drawing the masses of the working youth into the straggle against the offensive of capital, against fascism and the danger of war; we have neglected this task in a number of countries. We have underestimated the enormous importance of the youth in the fight against fascism. We have not always taken into account the special economic, political and cultural interests of the youth. We have likewise not paid proper attention to revolutionary education of the youth.

All this has been utilized very cleverly by fascism, which in some countries, particularly in Germany, has inveigled large sec¬ tions of the youth onto the anti-proletarian road. It should be borne in mind that it is not only by the glamor of militarism that fascism entices the youth. It feeds and clothes some of them in its detach¬ ments, gives work to others, and even sets up so-called cultural in¬ stitutions for the youth, trying in this way to imbue them with the idea that it really can and wants to feed, clothe, teach and provide work for the mass of working youth.

In a number of capitalist countries, our Young Communist Leagues are still mainly sectarian organizations divorced from the masses. Their fundamental weakness is that they still try to copy the Communist Parties, to copy their forms and methods of work, for¬ getting that the Y.C.L. is not a Communist Party of the youth. They do not take sufficient account of the fact that it is an organization with its own special tasks. Its methods and forms of work, education and struggle, must be adapted to the actual level and needs of the youth.

Our Young Communists have shown memorable examples of heroism in the fight against fascist violence and bourgeois reaction. But they still lack the ability to win the masses of the youth away from hostile influences by dint of stubborn, concrete work, as is evident from the fact that they have not yet overcome their opposi¬ tion to work in the fascist mass organizations, and that their ap¬ proach to the Socialist youth and other non-Communist youth is not always correct.

A great part of the responsibility for all this must be borne, of course, by the Communist Parties as well, for they ought to lead and support the Y.C.L. in its work. For the problem of the youth is not only a Y.C.L. problem. It is a problem for the whole Communist movement. In the straggle for the youth, the Communist Parties and the Y.C.L. organizations must actually effect a decisive change. The main task of the Communist youth movement in capitalist countries is to advance boldly in the direction of bringing about the united front, along the path of organizing and uniting the young generation of working people. The tremendous influence that even the first steps taken in this direction exert on the revolutionary movement of the youth is shown by the examples of France and the United States during the recent past. It was sufficient in these countries to proceed to apply the united front for considerable successes to be immedi¬ ately achieved. In the sphere of the international united front, the successful initiative of the committee against war and fascism in Paris in bringing about the international cooperation of all non¬ fascist youth organizations is also worthy of note in this connection.

These recent successful steps in the united front movement of the youth also show that the forms which the united front of the youth should assume must not be stereotyped, nor necessarily be the same as those met with in the practice of the Communist Parties. The Young Communist Leagues must strive in every way to unite the forces of all non-fascist mass organizations of the youth, includ¬ ing the formation of various kinds of common organizations for the straggle against fascism, against the unprecedented manner in which the youth is being stripped of every right, against the milita¬ rization of the youth and for the economic and cultural rights of the young generation, in order to draw these young workers over to the side of the anti-fascist front, no matter where they may be - in the factories, the forced labor camps, the labor exchanges, the army barracks and the fleet, the schools or in the various sport, cultural or other organizations.

In developing and strengthening the Y.C.L., our Y.C.L. mem¬ bers must work for the formation of anti-fascist associations of the Communist and Socialist Youth Leagues on a platform of class straggle.

Women and the United Front

Nor has work among toiling women — among women workers, unemployed women, peasant women and housewives - been under¬ estimated any less than work among the youth. While fascism ex¬ acts most of all from youth, it enslaves women with particular rath- lessness and cynicism, playing on the most painful feelings of the mother, the housewife, the single working woman, uncertain of the morrow. Fascism, posing as a benefactor, throws the starving family a few beggarly scraps, trying in this way to stifle the bitterness aroused, particularly among the toiling women, by the unprecedent¬ ed slavery which fascism brings them. It drives working women out of industry, forcibly sends needy girls into the country, dooming them to the position of unpaid servants of rich farmers and land- lords. While promising women a happy home and family life, it drives women to prostitution more than any other capitalist regime.

Communists, above all our women Communists, must remem¬ ber that there cannot be a successful fight against fascism and war unless the wide masses of women are drawn into the struggle. Agi¬ tation alone will not accomplish this. Taking into account the con¬ crete situation in each instance, we must find a way of mobilizing the mass of women by work around their vital interests and de¬ mands — in a fight for their demands against high prices, for higher wages on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work, against mass dismissals, against every manifestation of inequality in the status of women and against fascist enslavement.

In endeavoring to draw women who work into the revolutionary movement, ue must not be afraid of forming separate women’s or¬ ganizations for this purpose, wherever necessary. The preconceived notion that the women’s organizations under Communist Party leadership in the capitalist countries must be liquidated, as part of the straggle against “women’s separatism” in the labor movement, has often done great harm.

It is necessary to seek out the simplest and most flexible forms, in order to establish contact and bring about cooperation in straggle between the revolutionary, Social-Democratic and progressive anti¬ war and anti-fascist women’s organizations. We must spare no pains to see that the women workers and toilers fight shoulder to shoulder with their class brothers in the ranks of the united working class front and the anti-fascist People’s Front.

The Anti-Imperialist United Front

The changed international and internal situation gives excep¬ tional importance to the question of the anti-imperialist united front in all colonial and semi-colonial countries.

In forming a wide anti-imperialist united front of straggle in the colonies and semi-colonies, it is necessary above all to recognize the variety of conditions in which the anti-imperialist straggle of the masses is proceeding, the varying degree of maturity of the national liberation movement, the role of the proletariat within it and the influence of the Communist Party over the masses.

In Brazil the problem differs from that in India, China, etc.

In Brazil the Communist Party, having laid a correct foundation for the development of the united anti-imperialist front by the estab- lishment of the National Liberation Alliance, has to make every effort to extend this front by drawing into it first and foremost the many millions of the peasantry, leading up to the formation of units of a people’s revolutionary army, completely devoted to the revolu¬ tion and to the establishment of the rale of the National Liberation Alliance.

In India the Communists have to support, extend and participate in all anti-imperialist mass activities, not excluding those which are under national reformist leadership. While maintaining their politi¬ cal and organizational independence, they must carry on active work inside the organizations which take part in the Indian National Congress, facilitating the process of crystallization of a national revolutionary wing among them, for the purpose of further develop¬ ing the national liberation movement of the Indian peoples against British imperialism.

In China, where the people’s movement has already led to the formation of Soviet districts over a considerable territory of the coun¬ try and to the organization of a powerful Red Army, the predatory attack of Japanese imperialism and the treason of the Nanking gov¬ ernment have brought into jeopardy the national existence of the great Chinese people. Only the Chinese Soviets can act as a unifying center in the straggle against the enslavement and partition of China by the imperialists, as a unifying center which will rally all anti-imperialist forces for the national defense of the Chinese people.

We therefore approve the initiative taken by our courageous brother Party of China in the creation of a most extensive anti¬ imperialist united front against Japanese imperialism and its Chi¬ nese agents, jointly with all those organized forces existing on the territory of China which are ready to wage a real straggle for the salvation of their country and their people. I am sure that I express the sentiments and thoughts of our entire Congress in saying that we send our warmest fraternal greetings, in the name of the revolution¬ ary proletariat of the whole world, to all the Soviets of China, to the Chinese revolutionary people. We send our ardent fraternal greet¬ ings to the heroic Red Army of China, tried in a thousand battles. And we assure the Chinese people of our firm resolve to support its straggle for its complete liberation from all imperialist robbers and their Chinese henchmen.

A United Front Government

Comrades, we have taken a bold, resolute course toward the united front of the working class, and are ready to carry it out with full consistency.

If we Communists are asked whether we advocate the united front only in the fight for partial demands, or whether we are pre¬ pared to share the responsibility even when it will be a question of forming a government on the basis of the united front, then we say with a full sense of our responsibility: Yes, we recognize that a situ¬ ation may arise in which the formation of a government of the pro¬ letarian united front, or of an anti-fascist People’s Front, will be¬ come not only possible but necessary in the interests of the proletar¬ iat. And in that case we shall declare for the formation of such a government without the slightest hesitation.

I am not speaking here of a government which may be formed after the victory of the proletarian revolution. It is not impossible, of course, that in some country, immediately after the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, there may be formed a Soviet gov¬ ernment on the basis of a government bloc of the Communist Party with a definite party (or its Left wing) participating in the revolu¬ tion. After the October Revolution the victorious Party of the Rus¬ sian Bolsheviks, as we know, included representatives of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries in the Soviet government. This was a spe¬ cific feature of the first Soviet government after the victory of the October Revolution.

I am not speaking of such a case, but of the possible formation of a united front government on the eve of and before the victory of the Soviet revolution.

What kind of government is this? And in what situation could there be any question of such a government?

It is primarily a government of struggle against fascism and re¬ action. It must be a government arising as the result of the united front movement and in no way restricting the activity of the Com¬ munist Party and the mass organizations of the working class but, on the contrary, taking resolute measures against the counter¬ revolutionary financial magnates and their fascist agents.

At a suitable moment, relying on the growing united front movement, the Communist Party of a given country will declare for the formation of such a government on the basis of a definite anti-fascist platform.

Under what objective conditions will it be possible to form such a government? In the most general terms, one can reply to this ques¬ tion as follows: under conditions of political crisis, when the ruling classes are no longer able to cope with the powerful rise of the mass anti-fascist movement. But this is only a general perspective, without which it will scarcely be possible in practice to form a united front government. Only the existence of definite special prerequisites can put on the order of the day the question of forming such a government as a politically essential task. It seems to me that the following pre¬ requisites deserve the greatest attention in this connection:

First, the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie must already be suf¬ ficiently disorganized and paralyzed, so that the bourgeoisie cannot prevent the formation of a government of struggle against reaction and fascism;

Second, the widest masses of working people, particularly the mass trade unions, must be in a state of vehement revolt against fascism and reaction, though not ready to rise in insurrection so as to fight under Communist Party leadership for the achievement of Soviet power.

Third, the differentiation and Leftward movement in the ranks of Social-Democracy and other parties participating in the united front must already have reached the point where a considerable pro¬ portion of them demand ruthless measures against the fascists and other reactionaries, straggle together with the Communists against fascism, and openly come out against that reactionary section of their own party which is hostile to Communism.

When and in what countries a situation will actually arise in which these prerequisites will be present in a sufficient degree, it is impossible to state in advance. But as such a possibility is not to be ruled out in any of the capitalist countries we must reckon with it, and not only orientate and prepare ourselves but also orientate the working class accordingly.

The fact that we are bringing up this question for discussion at all today is, of course, connected with our estimate of the situation and immediate prospects, as well as with the actual growth of the united front movement in a number of countries during the recent past. For more than ten years the situation in the capitalist countries was such that it was not necessary for the Communist International to discuss a question of this kind.

You remember, comrades, that at our Fourth Congress, in 1922, and again at the Fifth Congress, in 1924, the question of the slogan of a workers or a workers ’ and peasants ’ government, was under discussion. Originally the issue turned essentially upon a question which was almost comparable to the one we are discussing today. The debates that took place at that time in the Communist Interna¬ tional around this question, and in particular the political errors which were committed in connection with it, have to this day re¬ tained their importance for sharpening our vigilance against the danger of deviations to the Right or “Left” from the Bolshevik line on this question. Therefore I shall briefly point to a few of these errors, in order to draw from them the lessons necessary for the pre¬ sent policy of our Parties.

The first series of mistakes arose from the fact that the question of a workers’ government was not clearly and firmly bound up with the existence of a political crisis. Owing to this the Right opportun¬ ists were able to interpret matters as though we should strive for the formation of a workers’ government, supported by the Communist Party, in any, so to speak, “normal” situation. The ultra-Lefts, on the other hand, recognized only a workers’ government formed by armed insurrection, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Both views were wrong. In order, therefore, to avoid a repetition of such mistakes, we now lay great stress on the exact consideration of the specific, concrete circumstances of the political crisis and the up¬ surge of the mass movement, in which the formation of a united front government may prove possible and politically necessary.

The second series of errors arose from the fact that the question of a workers’ government was not bound up with the development of a militant mass united front movement of the proletariat. Thus the Right opportunists were able to distort the question, reducing it to the unprincipled tactics of forming blocs with Social-Democratic Parties on the basis of purely parliamentary arrangements. The ul¬ tra-Lefts, on the other hand, shouted: “No coalitions with the coun¬ ter-revolutionary Social-Democrats!”, regarding all Social- Democrats as counter-revolutionaries at bottom.

Both were wrong, and we now emphasize, on the one hand, that we are not in the least anxious for a “workers’ government” that would be nothing more or less than an enlarged Social-Democratic government. We even prefer not to use the term “workers’ govern¬ ments,” and speak of a united front government, which in political character is something absolutely different, different in principle, from all the Social-Democratic governments which usually call themselves “workers’ (or labor) governments.” While the Social- Democratic government is an instrument of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie in the interests of the preservation of the capitalist order, a united front government is an instrument of the collabora¬ tion of the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat with other anti¬ fascist parties, in the interests of the entire toiling population, a gov¬ ernment of struggle against fascism and reaction. Obviously there is a radical difference between these two things.

On the other hand, we stress the need to see the difference be¬ tween the two different camps of Social-Democracy. As I have al¬ ready pointed out, there is a reactionary camp of Social-Democracy, but alongside of it there exists and is growing the camp of the Left Social-Democrats (without quotation marks), of workers who are becoming revolutionary. In practice the decisive difference between them consists in their attitude to the united front of the working class. The reactionary Social-Democrats are against the united front; they slander the united front movement, they sabotage and disintegrate it, as it undermines their policy of compromise with the bourgeoisie. The Left Social-Democrats are for the united front ; they defend, develop and strengthen the united front movement. Inasmuch as this united front movement is a militant movement against fascism and reaction, it will be a constant driving force, im¬ pelling the united front government to struggle against the reaction¬ ary bourgeoisie. The more powerful this mass movement develops, the greater the force which it can offer to the government to combat the reactionaries. And the better this mass movement will be orga¬ nized from below, the wider the network of non-partisan class or¬ gans of the united front in the factories, among the unemployed, in the workers ’ districts, among the small people of town and country, the greater will be the guarantee against a possible degeneration of the policy of the united front government.

The third series of mistaken views which same to light during our former debates touched precisely on the practical policy of the “ workers’ government.” The Right opportunists considered that a “workers’ government” ought to keep “within the framework of bourgeois democracy,” and consequently ought not to take any steps going beyond this framework. The ultra-Lefts, on the other hand, in practice refused to make any attempt to form a united front government.

In 1923 Saxony and Thuringia presented a clear picture of a Right opportunist “workers’ government” in action. The entry of the Communists into the government of Saxony jointly with the Left Social-Democrats (Zeigner group) was no mistake in itself; on the contrary, the revolutionary situation in Germany fully justified this step. But, in taking part in the government, the Communists should have used their positions primarily for the purpose of arming the proletariat. This they did not do. They did not even requisition a single apartment of the rich, although the housing shortage among the workers was so great that many of them with their wives and children were still without a roof over their heads. They also did nothing to organize the revolutionary mass movement of the work¬ ers. They behaved in general like ordinary’ parliamentary ministers “within the framework of bourgeois democracy.” As you know, this was the result of the opportunist policy of Brandler and his adher¬ ents. The result was such bankruptcy that to this day we have to refer to the government of Saxony as the classical example of how revolutionaries should not behave when in office.

Comrades, we demand an entirely different policy from any united front government. We demand that it should carry out defi¬ nite and fundamental revolutionary demands required by the situa¬ tion. For instance, control of production, control of the banks, dis¬ banding of the police and its replacement by an armed workers’ militia, etc.

Fifteen years ago Lenin called upon us to focus all our attention on “searching out forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution.” It may be that in a number of countries the united front government will prove to be one of the most important transitional forms. “Left” doctrinaires always avoided this precept of Lenin’s. Like the limited propagandists that they were, they spoke only of “aims,” without ever worrying about “forms of transition.” The Right opportunists, on the other hand, tried to establish a special “democratic intermediate stage” lying between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the pur¬ pose of instilling into the workers the illusion of a peaceful parlia¬ mentary passage from the one dictatorship to the other. This ficti¬ tious “intermediate stage” they also called “transitional form,” and even quoted Lenin’s words! But this piece of swindling was not difficult to expose: for Lenin spoke of the form of transition and approach to the “ proletarian revolution ,” i.e., to the overthrow of the bourgeois dictatorship, and not of some transitional form be¬ tween the bourgeois and the proletarian dictatorship.

Why did Lenin attach such exceptionally great importance to the form of transition to the proletarian revolution? Because he had in mind “ the fundamental law of all great revolutions ,” the law that for the masses propaganda and agitation alone cannot take the place of their own political experience, when it is a question of attracting really wide masses of the working people to the side of the revolu¬ tionary vanguard, without which a victorious straggle for power is impossible. It is a common mistake of a Leftist character to imagine that as soon as a political (or revolutionary) crisis arises, it is enough for the Communist leaders to throw out the slogan of revo¬ lutionary insurrection, and the masses will follow them. No, even in such a crisis the masses are by no means always ready to do so. We saw this in the case of Spain. To help the millions to master as rap¬ idly as possible, through their own experience, what they have to do, where to find a radical solution, and what party is worthy of their confidence these among others are the purposes for which both transitional slogans and special “forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution” are necessary. Otherwise the great mass of the people, a prey to petty-bourgeois democratic illusions and traditions, may waver even when there is a revolutionary situation, may procrastinate and stray, without finding the road to revolution - and then come under the ax of the fascist executioners.

That is why we indicate the possibility of forming an anti¬ fascist united front government in the conditions of a political crisis. In so far as such a government will really prosecute the straggle against the enemies of the people, and give a free hand to the work¬ ing class and the Communist Party, we Communists shall accord it our unstinted support, and as soldiers of the revolution shall take our place in the first line offire. But we state frankly to the masses:

Final salvation this government cannot bring. It is not in a po¬ sition to overthrow the class rale of the exploiters, and for this rea¬ son cannot finally remove the danger of fascist counter-revolution. Consequently it is necessary to prepare for the socialist revolution! Soviet power and only Soviet power can bring salvation!

In estimating the present development of the world situation, we see that a political crisis is maturing in quite a number of coun¬ tries. This makes a firm decision by our Congress on the question of a united front government a matter of great urgency and importance.

If our parties are able to utilize in a Bolshevik fashion the op¬ portunity of forming a united front government and of waging the straggle for formation and maintenance in power of such a govern¬ ment, for the revolutionary training of the masses, this will be the best political justification of our policy in favor of the formation of united front governments.

The Ideological Struggle against Fascism

One of the weakest aspects of the anti-fascist straggle of our par¬ ties is that they react inadequately and too slowly to the demagogy of fascism, and to this day continue to neglect the problems of the strag¬ gle against fascist ideology. Many comrades did not believe that so reactionary a variety of bourgeois ideology as the ideology of fas¬ cism, which in its stupidity frequently reaches the point of lunacy, was capable of gaining a mass influence at all. This was a great mis¬ take. The putrefaction of capitalism penetrates to the innermost core of its ideology and culture, while the desperate situation of wide masses of the people renders certain sections of them susceptible to infection from the ideological refuse of this putrefaction.

Under no circumstances may we underrate fascism’s power of ideological infection. On the contrary, we for our part must develop an extensive ideological straggle based on clear, popular arguments and a correct, well thought out approach to the peculiarities of the national psychology of the masses of the people.

The fascists are rummaging through the entire history of every nation so as to be able to pose as the heirs and continuators of all that was exalted and heroic in its past, while all that was degrading or offensive to the national sentiments of the people they make use of as weapons against the enemies of fascism. Hundreds of books are being published in Germany with only one aim — to falsify the history of the German people and give it a fascist complexion.

The new-baked National-Socialist historians try to depict the history of Germany as if for the past two thousand years, by virtue of some historical law, a certain line of development had ran through it like a red thread, leading to the appearance on the histori¬ cal scene of a national “savior,” a “Messiah,” of the German people, a certain “Corporal” of Austrian extraction! In these books the greatest figures of the German people of the past are represented as having been fascists, while the great peasant movements are set down as the direct precursors of the fascist movement.

Mussolini makes every effort to make capital for himself out of the heroic figure of Garibaldi. The French fascists bring to the fore as their heroine Joan of Arc. The American fascists appeal to the traditions of the American War of Independence, the traditions of Washington and Lincoln. The Bulgarian fascists make use of the national liberation movement of the ‘seventies and its heroes be¬ loved of the people, Vassil Levsky, Stephen Karaj and others.

Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people, in an historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist, a Leninist-Marxist, a Leninist-Stalinist spir¬ it, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people’s revolutionary traditions and past - voluntarily hand over to the fas¬ cist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, that the fascists may bamboozle the masses.

No, Comrades, we are concerned with every important ques¬ tion, not only of the present and the future, but also of the past of our own peoples. We Communists do not pursue a narrow policy based on the craft interests of the workers. We are not narrow¬ minded trade union functionaries, or leaders of medieval guilds of handicraftsmen and journeymen. We are the representatives of the class interests of the most important, the greatest class of modern society - the working class, to whose destiny it falls to free mankind from the sufferings of the capitalist system, the class which in one- sixth of the world has already cast off the yoke of capitalism and constitutes the ruling class. We defend the vital interests of all the exploited, toiling strata, i. e. , of the overwhelming majority in any capitalist country.

We Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, on principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism, and should never act as such. The task of edu¬ cating the workers and all working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is one of the fundamental tasks of every Com¬ munist Party. But anyone who thinks that this permits him, or even compels him, to sneer at all the national sentiments of the wide masses of working people is far from being a genuine Bolshevik, and has understood nothing of the teaching of Lenin and Stalin on the national question.

Lenin, who always fought bourgeois nationalism resolutely and consistently, gave us an example of the correct approach to the problem of national sentiments, in his article “On the National Pride of the Great Russians,” written in 1914. He wrote:

Are we enlightened Great-Russian proletarians imper¬ vious to the feeling of national pride? Certainly not! We love our language and our motherland; we, more than any other group, are working to raise its laboring masses (i.e., nine-tenths of its population) to the level of intelligent democrats and socialists. We, more than anybody, are grieved to see and feel to what violence, oppression and mockery our beautiful motherland is being subjected by the tsarist hangmen, the nobles and the capitalists. We are proud of the fact that those acts of violence met with re¬ sistance in our midst, in the midst of the Great Russians; that we have given the world Radischev, the Decembrists, the declasse revolutionaries of the seventies; that in 1905 the Great Russian working class created a powerful revolu¬ tionary party of the masses.... We are filled with national pride because of the knowledge that the Great-Russian na¬ tion, too, has created a revolutionary class; that it, too, has proven capable of giving humanity great examples of straggle for freedom and for socialism; that its contribution is not confined solely to great pogroms, numerous scaf¬ folds, torture chambers, great famines and great servility before the priests, the tsars, the landowners and the capital¬ ists.

We are filled with national pride, and therefore we par¬ ticularly hate our slavish past ...and our slavish present, in which the same landowners, aided by the capitalists, lead us into war to stifle Poland and the Ukraine, to throttle the democratic movement in Persia and in China, to strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Dobrinskys, Purishkeviches that cover with shame our Great-Russian national dignity.”

This is what Lenin wrote on national pride.

I think, comrades, that when the fascists, at the Leipzig trial, at¬ tempted to slander the Bulgarians as a barbarian people, I was not wrong in taking up the defense of the national honor of the toiling masses of the Bulgarian people, who are struggling heroically against the fascist usurpers, the real barbarians and savages, nor was I wrong in declaring that I had no cause to be ashamed of being a Bulgarian, but that, on the contrary, I was proud of being a son of the heroic Bulgarian working class.

Comrades, proletarian internationalism must, so to speak, “ac¬ climatize itself’ in each country in order to sink deep roots in its native land. National forms of the proletarian class struggle and of the labor movement in the individual countries are in no contradic¬ tion to proletarian internationalism; on the contrary, it is precisely in these forms that the international interests of the proletariat can be successfully defended.

It goes without saying that it is necessary everywhere and on all occasions to expose before the masses and prove to them concretely that the fascist bourgeoisie, on the pretext of de fending general na¬ tional interests, is conducting its egotistical policy of oppressing and exploiting its own people, as well as robbing and enslaving other nations. But we must not confine ourselves to this. We must at the same time prove by the very struggle of the working class and the actions of the Communist Parties that the proletariat, in rising against every manner of bondage and national oppression, is the only true fighter for national freedom and the independence of the people.

The interests of the class struggle of the proletariat against its native exploiters and oppressors are not in contradiction to the in¬ terests of a free and happy future of the nation. On the contrary, the socialist revolution will signify the salvation of the nation and will open up to it the road to loftier heights. By the very fact of building at the present time its class organizations and consolidating its posi¬ tions, by the very fact of defending democratic rights and liberties against fascism, by the very fact of fighting for the overthrow of capitalism, the working class is fighting for the future of the nation.

The revolutionary proletariat is fighting to save the culture of the people, to liberate it from the shackles of decaying monopoly capitalism, from barbarous fascism, which is laying violent hands on it. Only the proletarian revolution can avert the destruction of culture and raise it to its highest flowering as a truly national culture national in form and socialist in content — which, under Stalin's leadership, is being realized in the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub¬ lics before our very eyes.

Proletarian internationalism not only is not in contradiction to this struggle of the working people of the individual countries for national, social and cultural freedom, but, thanks to international proletarian solidarity and fighting unity, assures the support that is necessary for victory in this straggle. The working class in the capi¬ talist countries can triumph only in closest alliance with the victori¬ ous proletariat of the great Soviet Union. Only by straggling hand in hand with the proletariat of the imperialist countries can the colonial peoples and oppressed national minorities achieve their freedom. The sole road to victory for the proletarian revolution in the imperi¬ alist countries lies through the revolutionary alliance of the working class of the imperialist countries with the national liberation move¬ ment in the colonies and dependent countries, because, as Marx taught us, “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”

Communists belonging to an oppressed, dependent nation can¬ not combat chauvinism successfully among the people of their own nation if they do not at the same time show in practice, in the mass movement, that they actually straggle for the liberation of their na¬ tion from the alien yoke. And again, on the other hand, the Com¬ munists of an oppressing nation can not do what is necessary to ed¬ ucate the toiling masses of their nation in the spirit of international¬ ism without waging a resolute straggle against the oppressor policy of their “own” bourgeoisie, for the right of complete self- determination for the nations kept in bondage by it. If they do not do this, they likewise do not make it easier for the toilers of the op¬ pressed nation to overcome their nationalist prejudices.

If we act in this spirit, if in all our mass work we prove con¬ vincingly that we are free of both national nihilism and bourgeois nationalism, then and only then shall we be able to wage a really successful straggle against the jingo demagogy of the fascists.

That is the reason why a correct and practical application of the Leninist-Stalinist national policy is of such paramount importance. It is unquestionably an essential preliminary condition for a suc¬ cessful straggle against chauvinism - this main instrument of ideo¬ logical influence of the fascists upon the masses.

Consolidation of the Communist Parties and the Struggle for Political Unity of the Proletariat

Comrades, in the straggle to establish the united front the im¬ portance of the leading role of the Communist Party in creases ex¬ traordinarily. Only the Communist Party is at bottom the initiator, the organizer and the driving force of the united front of the work¬ ing class.

The Communist Parties can ensure the mobilization of the wid¬ est masses of working people for a united straggle against fascism and the offensive of capital only if they strengthen their own ranks in every respect, if they develop their initiative, pursue a Marxist- Leninist policy and apply correct, flexible tactics which take into account the actual situation and alignment of class forces.

Consolidation of the Communist Parties

In the period between the Sixth and Seventh Congresses, our Parties in the capitalist countries have undoubtedly grown in stature and have been considerably steeled. But it would be a most danger¬ ous mistake to rest content with this achievement. The more the united front of the working class extends, the more will new, com¬ plex problems rise before us and the more will it be necessary for us to work on the political and organizational consolidation of our Par¬ ties. The united front of the proletariat brings to the fore an army of workers who will be able to carry out their mission if this army is headed by a leading force which will point out its aims and paths. This leading force can only be a strong proletarian, revolutionary party.

If we Communists exert every effort to establish a united front, we do this not for the narrow purpose of recruiting new members for the Communist Parties. But we must strengthen the Communist Parties in every way and increase their membership for the very reason that we seriously want to strengthen the united front. The strengthening of the Communist Parties is not a narrow Party con¬ cern but the concern of the entire working class.

The unity, revolutionary solidarity and fighting preparedness of the Communist Parties constitute most valuable capital which be¬ longs not only to us but to the whole working class. We have com¬ bined and shall continue to combine our readiness to march jointly with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations to the straggle against fascism with an irreconcilable struggle against Social-Democracy as the ideology and practice of compromise with the bourgeoisie, and consequently also against any penetration of this ideology into our own ranks.

In boldly and resolutely carrying out the policy of the united front, we meet in our own ranks with obstacles which we must re¬ move at all costs in the shortest possible time.

After the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, a successful strug¬ gle was waged in all Communist Parties of the capitalist countries against any tendency toward an opportunist adaptation to the con¬ ditions of capitalist stabilization and against any infection with re¬ formist and legalist illusions. Our Parties purged their ranks of vari¬ ous kinds of Right opportunists, thus strengthening their Bolshevik unity and fighting capacity. Less successful, and frequently entirely lacking, was the fight against sectarianism. Sectarianism manifested itself no longer in primitive, open forms, as in the first years of the existence of the Communist International, but, under cover of a formal recognition of the Bolshevik theses, hindered the develop¬ ment of a Bolshevik mass policy. In our day this is often no longer an “infantile disorder ,” as Lenin wrote, but a deeply rooted vice, which must be shaken off or it will be impossible to solve the prob¬ lem of establishing the united front of the proletariat and of leading the masses from the positions of reformism to the side of revolution.

In the present situation sectarianism, self-satisfied sectarianism, as we designate it in the draft resolution, more than anything else impedes our straggle for the realization of the united front: sectari¬ anism, satisfied with its doctrinaire narrowness, its divorce from the real life of the masses; satisfied with its simplified methods of solving the most complex problems of the working class movement on the basis of stereotyped schemes; sectarianism, which professes to know all and considers it superfluous to learn from the masses, from the lessons of the labor movement. In short, sectarianism, to which, as they say, mountains are mere stepping-stones.

Self-satisfied sectarianism will not and cannot understand that the leadership of the working class by the Communist Party does not come of itself. The leading role of the Communist Party in the straggles of the working class must be won. For this purpose it is necessary, not to rant about the leading role of the Communists, but to merit and win the confidence of the working masses by everyday mass work and correct policy. This will be possible only if in our political work we Communists seriously take into account the actual level of the class consciousness of the masses, the degree to which they have become revolutionized, if we soberly appraise the actual situation, not on the basis of our wishes but on the basis of the actu¬ al state of affairs. Patiently, step by step, we must make it easier for the broad masses to come over to the Communist position. We ought never to forget the words of Lenin, who warns us as strongly as possible:

...this is the whole point - we must not regard that

which is obsolete for us as obsolete for the class, as obso¬ lete for the masses.

Is it not a fact, comrades, that there are still not a few such doc¬ trinaire elements left in our ranks who at all times and places sense nothing but danger in the policy of the united front? For such com¬ rades the whole united front is one unrelieved peril. But this sectari¬ an “stickling for principle” is nothing but political helplessness in face of the difficulties of directly leading the straggle of the masses.

Sectarianism finds expression particularly in overestimating the revolutionization of the masses, in overestimating the speed at which they are abandoning the positions of reformism, and in at¬ tempting to leap over difficult stages and the complicated tasks of the movement. In practice, methods of leading the masses have fre¬ quently been replaced by the methods of leading a narrow party group. The strength of the traditional connection between the mass¬ es and their organizations and leaders was underestimated, and when the masses did not break off these connections immediately, the attitude taken toward them was just as harsh as that adopted to¬ ward their reactionary leaders. Tactics and slogans have tended to become stereotyped for all countries, the special features of the ac¬ tual situation in each individual country being left out of account. The necessity of stubborn straggle in the very midst of the masses themselves to win their confidence has been ignored, the straggle for the partial demands of the workers and work in the reformist trade unions and fascist mass organizations have been neglected.

The policy of the united front has frequently been replaced by bare appeals and abstract propaganda.

In no less a degree have sectarian views hindered the correct se¬ lection of people, the training and developing of cadres connected with the masses, enjoying the confidence of the masses, cadres whose revolutionary mettle have been tried and tested in class bat¬ tles, cadres capable of combining the practical experience of mass work with the staunchness ofprinciple of a Bolshevik.

Thus sectarianism has to a considerable extent retarded the growth of the Communist Parties, made it difficult to carry out a real mass policy, prevented our taking advantage of the difficulties of the class enemy to strengthen the positions of the revolutionary movement, and hindered the winning over of the wide mass of the proletariat to the side of the Communist Parties.

While fighting most resolutely to overcome and exterminate the last remnants of self-satisfied sectarianism, we must increase in eve¬ ry way our vigilance toward Right opportunism and the struggle against it and against every one of its concrete manifestations, bear¬ ing in mind that the danger of Right opportunism will increase in proportion as the wide united front develops. Already there are tendencies to reduce the role of the Communist Party in the ranks of the united front and to effect a reconciliation with Social- Democratic ideology. Nor must the fact be lost sight of that the tac¬ tics of the united front are a method of clearly convincing the So¬ cial-Democratic workers of the correctness of the Communist poli¬ cy and the incorrectness of the reformist policy, and that they are not a reconciliation with Social-Democratic ideology and practice. A successful straggle to establish the united front imperatively de¬ mands constant straggle in our ranks against tendencies to depreci¬ ate the role of the Party, against legalist illusions, against reliance on spontaneity and automatism, both in liquidating fascism and in conducting the united front against the slightest vacillation at the moment of decisive action.

It is necessary - Stalin teaches us - that the Party be able to combine in its work the greatest adhesion to princi¬ ple (not to be confused with sectarianism!) with a maxi¬ mum of contacts and connections with the masses (not to be confused with “tailism”!), without which it is not only impossible for the Party to teach the masses but also to learn from them, not only to lead the masses and raise them to the level of the Party, but to listen to the voice of the masses and divine their sorest needs. (Joseph Stalin, “The Perspective of the Communist Party of Germany and Bol- shevization,” Pravda, No. 27, February 3, 1926.)

Political Unity of the Working Class

Comrades, the development of the united front of joint struggle of the Communist and Social-Democratic workers against fascism and the offensive of capital likewise brings to the fore the question of political unity, of a single political mass party of the working class. The Social-Democratic workers are becoming more and more convinced by experience that the straggle against the class enemy demands unity of political leadership, inasmuch as duality in lead¬ ership impedes the further development and reinforcement of the joint straggle of the working class.

The interests of the class straggle of the proletariat and the suc¬ cess of the proletarian revolution make it imperative that there be a single party of the proletariat in each country. Of course, it is not so easy or simple to achieve this. It requires stubborn work and strag¬ gle and will of necessity be a more or less lengthy process. The Communist Parties, basing themselves on the growing urge of the workers for a unification of the Social-Democratic Parties or of in¬ dividual organizations with the Communist Parties, must firmly and confidently take the initiative in this unification. The cause of amal¬ gamating the forces of the working class in a single revolutionary proletarian party, at the time when the international labor movement is entering the period of closing the split in its ranks, is our cause, is the cause of the Communist International.

But while it is sufficient for the establishment of the united front of the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties to have an agreement to straggle against fascism, the offensive of capital and war, the achievement of political unity is possible only on the basis of a number of definite conditions involving principles.

This unification is possible only:

First, on condition of complete independence from the bour¬ geoisie and complete rupture of the bloc of Social-Democracy with the bourgeoisie ;

Second, on condition that unity of action be first brought about; Third, on condition that the necessity of the revolutionary over¬ throw of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of Soviets be recognized;

Fourth, on condition that support of one’s own bourgeoisie in imperialist war be rejected;

Fifth, on condition that the party be constructed on the basis of democratic centralism, which ensures unity of will and action, and which has been tested by the experience of the Russian Bolsheviks.

We must explain to the Social-Democratic workers, patiently and in comradely fashion, why political unity of the working class is impossible without these conditions. We must discuss together with them the sense and significance of these conditions.

Why is it necessary for the realization of the political unity of the proletariat that there be complete independence of the bourgeoisie and a rupture of the bloc of Social-Democrats with the bourgeoisie?

Because the whole experience of the labor movement, particu¬ larly the experience of the fifteen years of coalition policy in Ger¬ many, has shown that the policy of class collaboration, the policy of dependence on the bourgeoisie, leads to the defeat of the working class and to the victory of fascism. And only the road of irreconcil¬ able class struggle against the bourgeoisie, the road of the Bolshe¬ viks, is the true road to victory.

Why must unity of action be first established as a preliminary condition of political unity?

Because unity of action to repel the offensive of capital and of fascism is possible and necessary even before the majority of the workers are united on a common political platform for the over¬ throw of capitalism, while the working out of unity of views on the main lines and aims of the struggle of the proletariat, without which a unification of the parties is impossible, requires a more or less extended period of time. And unity of views is worked out best of all in joint struggle against the class enemy even today. To propose to unite at once instead of forming a united front means to place the cart before the horse and to imagine that the cart will then move ahead. Precisely for the reason that for us the question of political unity is not a maneuver, as it is for many Social-Democratic leaders, we insist on the realization of unity of action as one of the most im¬ portant stages in the struggle for political unity.

Why is it necessary to recognize the necessity of the revolution¬ ary overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dicta¬ torship of the proletariat in the form of Soviet power?

Because the experience of the victory of the great October Rev¬ olution on the one hand, and, on the other, the bitter lessons learned in Germany, Austria and Spain during the entire post-war period, have confirmed once more that the victory of the proletariat is pos¬ sible only by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoi¬ sie, and that the bourgeoisie would rather drown the labor move¬ ment in a sea of blood than allow the proletariat to establish social¬ ism by peaceful means. The experience of the October Revolution has demonstrated patently that the basic content of the proletarian revolution is the question of the proletarian dictatorship, which is called upon to crush the resistance of the overthrown exploiters, to arm the revolution for the struggle against imperialism and to lead the revolution to the complete victory of socialism. To achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the vast majority over an insignificant minority, over the exploiters — and only as such can it be brought about - for this Soviets are needed embracing all sections of the working class, the basic masses of the peasantry and the rest of the toilers, without whose awakening, without whose inclusion in the front of the revolutionary struggle, the victory of the proletariat cannot be consolidated.

Why is the refusal of support to the bourgeoisie in an imperial¬ ist war a condition of political unity?

Because the bourgeoisie wages imperialist war for its predatory purposes, against the interests of the vast majority of the peoples, under whatever guise this war may be waged. Because all imperial¬ ists combine their feverish preparations for war with extremely in¬ tensified exploitation and oppression of the working people in their own country. Support of the bourgeoisie in such a war means trea¬ son to the country and the international working class.

Why, finally, is the building of the party on the basis of demo¬ cratic centralism a condition of unity?

Because only a party built on the basis of democratic centralism can ensure unity of will and action, can lead the proletariat to victo¬ ry over the bourgeoisie, which has at its disposal so powerful a weapon as the centralized state apparatus. The application of the principle of democratic centralism has stood the splendid historical