Glotzer Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Stalinist Policy on Fight Against War
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 4, 28 January 1933, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The Student Congress held in Mandel Hall, University of Chicago, on December 26th and 27th, gave further testimony to the political revision invoked upon the Communist movement by Stalinism. The congress signified that the struggle against imperialist war and militarism was the task not of the Communists and revolutionary workers, but of the students. The progenitor of this gathering was the Amsterdam Congress held in Brussels in the summer of 1932. For that occasion, the International Left Opposition presented an extremely sharp criticism of the present regime in the Communist International, because it turned the struggle against war over to an arbitrarily appointed group of pacifists, liberals, poets, musicians, artists, actors and what not, removing this decisive activity from the hands of the Communist International, and its sections.
Over the question of the war the working class movements during the war-years split. The culmination of years of political and theoretical struggle in the 2nd International came at the outbreak of the war when the leading party in the 2nd International, the German Social Democratic Party, voted for war credits. That action was a signal for the other Socialist Parties to follow suit. With each section of the Socialist International supporting its own fatherland, the doom of Social Democracy as the leader of the revolutionary proletariat was sealed. Out of the background of this collapse, rose the international Left wing which was later to form the Communist International. The attitude toward the war in particular, and militarism in general, was the burning question in those trying days, and upon which the attitude, the political fate of the movement depended.
Upon the experiences of the world war, the Communist International in its early years set for itself the task of clarifying the great confusion of that and made clear to the revolutionary movement that the struggle against war is one of the chief tasks of the Communists. It must at all times carry out a systematic agitation and propaganda against war. The ranks of the army must be penetrated by the Communists. In the event of war the aim of the Communists must be set upon transforming the imperialist war into a civil war. Upon concrete issues the Communists must initiate united front movements of the working class and its organizations against war and militarism. But above all do not entrust the struggle against war, to pacifists, to liberals, to the socialists, the petty-bourgeoisie or other such groupings. Unless the Communists direct the struggle against war, that struggle will in the end result in betrayal. Wasn’t that the lesson of experience? Certainly! International pacifism, international social-democracy, international liberalism, betrayed the masses and came to the support of the imperialist conflicts. That is why it is all-important that in organizing united front movements against war, political policy must be absolutely correct. It is impossible to unite on the basis of an “agreement” on program with other political groupings. The basis for united front action is the concrete situation— but the Communists at no time surrender their political aims, modify them or alter them in the interests of forming united front action. That is why the Fourth Congress of the Young Communist International found it necessary to declare:
“The Young Communist International and the Young Communist Leagues, in close connection with the Party and paralleled with the struggle against bourgeois militarism and the danger of new imperialist wars must carry on a SPECIAL AGITATION, PROPAGANDA AND EDUCATION FOR THE INEVITABILITY OF THE CIVIL WAR, THE NECESSITY FOR MILITARY PREPARATION AND THE ARMING OF THE PROLETARIAT AND THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION BY FORCE OF ARMS, THAT IS TO SAY THE CREATION OF THE ARMED PROLETARIAN POWER, THE RED ARMY.”
Not any artificially treated organizations have the task of carrying on the general struggle against war, not the pacifists, or the liberals, but the Communists. Isn’t that clear? The Communists do not conceive of war as an abstract issue but understand it as a product of the economic order of capitalism. The elimination of war and militarism will come about with the abolition of capitalism. Thus the struggle against war as an integral part of capitalism must be unified with the general social system and its replacement with Communism.
The Amsterdam Congress marked a departure from Communist principles. The Communist International, instead of organizing and leading the struggle against war, turned this task over to Barbusse, Rolland, Patel and others. Officially the Communist International was represented at the Congress. But the actual organization, of the Congress, its political program, its direction, was in the hands of an arbitrarily selected group who in reality represented nobody. Is it any wonder that the ripples created by Amsterdam have now settled to a dead calm? Confusion marked the program of that Congress. Genuine issues making necessary the existence of such a congress were not fully blossomed. The Congress in Amsterdam only succeeded in creating confusion on the question of the struggle against War. The Communists hid behind the veil of the congress.
How does the further confusion of Amsterdam take place? It took place in the form of the organization of the American Committee against War, another arbitrarily selected committee of elements akin to those who organized the Amsterdam Congress. And just as the Amsterdam Congress not only formally but actually replaces the C.I. and YCI, as the organization to lead the struggle against war and militarism, so the American Committee against War, accomplishes the same end nationally. It was also, on the basis of a cable from the Amsterdam Congress, that the National Students League initiated the movement for the Student Congress Against War. Building upon the experience of Amsterdam and the American Committee Against War, the NSL arbitrarily organized a National Committee for the Student Congress Against War composed of a variety of elements representing numerous political views ranging from pacifism to Communism, but actually representing no organizations or members. It was this committee that organized and directed the congress. But behind this committee, as behind Amsterdam and the American Committee, stood the Communist party and the Young Communist League. Official Communism hid once more behind the cloak of a “National Committee”. And so we witnessed again the spectacle of the Communists turning over the struggle against war to semi-Communists, pacifists, liberals, and anti-Communists. But what is outstanding in relation to this affair, is that for the first time since the organization of the C.I. and YCL, we are made to understand that the struggle against war and militarism is to be carried out this by the students, divorced from the working class and the class struggle.
Paying lip-service to the contrary, means nothing. The fact is that the first organized attempt to build an anti-war movement was turned over to the students. It is necessary to analysis this further. But before that, one other observation is necessary Stalinism, which rejects the united front tactic as originated at the third and fourth congresses of the Comintern, and so much insisted upon by the Left Opposition, on the basis that they could not “unite with leaders”, ‘’but only from below”, betrays itself on the question of war. Here of all places, the “united front from below” is completely forgotten and what does take place is a united front purely from the top, with individual and isolated leaders of various movements, without contact or control by the workers. It is but another instant of Stalinist zig-zags.
The advanced student in capitalist countries represents socially and ideologically the ruling class. The percentage of proletarian students is extremely small. Students do not play an independent role in the class struggle and for the most part they support capitalism and become its intellectual leaders. As a mass the students are reactionary. Only small sections of the students can be won to Communism or to the support of the proletariat. But under no circumstances can the students independently engage in struggle let alone lead any struggle against capitalism. That is the view that dominated the Young Communist International, at its inception. (At a future date the writer will present for discussion an article on the role of the student and National Student League.) It is the task of the Communists to win support of the small minority of proletarian students and draw them into the struggle. That activity belongs to the Young Communist League. But what happened is that the student movement initiated the anti-war movement, gave it its leadership and only succeeded in realizing what Amsterdam has: confusion.
If our analysis of the student is correct (that analysis coincides with the resolution of the Young Communist International adopted at its 2nd congress) then it was utterly false to transfer the anti-war work into the hands of the students. Actually in relation to the youth, this task is one of the chief activities of the Young Communist League, which embodies in itself the glorious traditions of the world youth movement during the war days. But here again, following the logic of Amsterdam, the YCL, which should have initiated the movement was nowhere to be seen. It was not even represented at the congress. It was afraid to taint the congress with Communism. “Keep it pure” was the slogan, because the aim is to win the pacifists and liberals! That is how the pre-congress period looked. The students were organizing the movement against war and militarism!
Let us examine briefly the pre-congress period. First of all, a burning concrete issue was absent. Therefore the congress took on the character of a united trout (among students!) for the drawing up of a program in the struggle against war. When it is understood that the whole affair was initiated by the Communists, the criminal nature of the understanding becomes clear. The working youth was not invited to the congress thereby cutting off all relations between the students and the workers. That was criminal act number two. In an effort to win the pacifists and liberals the call for the congress was addressed in the vaguest terms. What is more the congress call was false. It raised the cry for a struggle against war without specifying what kind of war. In popularizing the congress, the Soviet Union and its defense was not even mentioned. So close a sympathizer to the Communist movement as Carl Haessler, in speaking for the congress at one of the colleges in Chicago, did not mention the Soviet Union and its defense. When confronted with objections by members of the Spartacus Youth Club, he replied that if he were to do that it would drive the non-Communists away from the congress. Such and more marked all the activities of the NSL. The Young Communist League remained ignominiously silent during this whole period.
It was on of the above mentioned situation that the Spartacus Youth Club in Chicago issued two statements, one addressed to the National Students League and the other to the YCL, outlining our criticisms of the congress preparative and proposing the necessary changes. These statements were well received by the rank and file. The leadership, however, attempted to edge out from under the criticism with charges of “Leftism” and “sectarian”. The proposal to invite working class youth organizations to the congress, made by a member of the Spartacus Youth Club at a meeting of the high school division of the NSL, was defeated by the vote of members of the YSL. It was to be a pure student gathering and the organizers made sure in advance that it would be tainted by delegates representing workers organizations.
The nature of the congress becomes clear. Its composition was woeful. There gathered some five or six hundred students. A majority represented the NSL, some socialists and pacifists, and a great number individual students. The agenda of the Congress was an unserious one. For a Congress that was to take up the question of how the students should struggle against war, to work up a. program and resolutions, one day was allotted to speeches by Communists, pacifists, and socialists. The various speeches did not help to clarify those gathered. At best confusion became more confounded. On the evening of the first day, study classes were held on various questions relating to war and militarism, directed by Communists, pacifists and socialists. And mind you, this was a congress. On the second day the practical questions of how to struggle against war, the resolutions, the election of the executive was to take place. Quite understandably, the proceedings the second day were rushed through with such speed that it was impossible for the delegates to actually assimilate its deliberations.
On the opening day of the congress the Spartacus Youth Club distributed a statement expressing the views of the Opposition youth on the congress and making concrete proposals to it. In addition to this statement the declaration of the International Left Opposition to the Amsterdam Congress was distributed. The Opposition pointed out in the statement the false nature of the congress, its failure to unite with the working youth, confusion in program, the need to adopt a revolutionary position in the struggle against war, the error in attempting to organize a permanent anti-war organizations and called upon the Young Communist League to issue an invitation for a broad united front conference of working class organizations to struggle on concrete issues against war.
Albert Glotzer Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 February 2020