The World's Trade Union Movement/Chapter 3
LECTURE NO. 3
The International Federation of Trade Unions
(The Amsterdam International)
International Trade Union Organizations
LET us acquaint ourselves with those tendencies which are noticed at the present time in the world's trade union movement. In order to study the struggle of factions (tendencies) within the world's trade union movement we have to consider the existing international trade union organizations and the particularities which differentiate one type of trade unions from the other.
In the world's trade union movement there are the following organizations: "The International Federation of Trade Unions," with headquarters at Amsterdam; twenty-nine international organizations united according to industry, as for instance, the International Unions of Metal Workers, Textile, Building Trades, Tailors, Barbers, Cap Makers, etc., which are politically close to the Amsterdam International. And then there is in existence the Red International of Labor Unions, with headquarters at Moscow, and thirteen International Propaganda Committees.
Besides these international units, for which the Amsterdam International and the Red International of Labor Unions unite the international trade union movement horizontally and the international unions according to industry, the International Propaganda Committees unite these same workers along vertical lines. Now, besides these, there is an "International Workingmens' Association." If this were judged by its name it might be considered something serious. But, in fact, it is the "International" created by the anarcho-syndicalist groups of France, Italy and Germany.
In addition to the internationals, which generally embrace all the factions within the labor movement, there is an attempt to create an International of Catholic Workers. And this "International" has already had international conferences where questions of interest to Catholic workers of different countries were discussed.
Here are all the international groupings in which are reflected the divergent political and trade union movements, and which, in one form or another, represent the existing factions within the international trade union movement.
Birth of the Amsterdam International
We will begin our acquaintance with the Amsterdam International; in the same order as we mentioned these organizations, we will consider their power, constitution, tactics and methods for solving those questions which the internationals contemplate to solve.
This International was created after the end of the war. Attempts to call international conferences were made even during the war, when the Holland and Swiss trade unions took upon themselves the initiative. But every time they met resistance from the trade unions of the Allied countries and therefore the conferences failed to materialize.
One of these Conferences, called on the initiative of the neutral trade unions, was held in Berne at the end of 1917. At this gathering the trade unionists of the Allied countries were not present, because the war was still continuing. Only after the war was ended did they succeed with the aid of the unions of the neutral countries again to call an international conference, which was held in February, 1919, also in Berne, Switzerland. Very little came out of that conference, but what remains proves that the main question discussed there was "Who was guilty during the war; Germany or the other countries?" The representatives from the Allied countries felt somewhat like diplomats of their "fatherlands," trying to obtain an admission from the representatives of the unions of Germany and Austria that "their countries" were guilty for the war and that they were sorry for the tactics which they used for many years. The Conference did not give any material results. The only result was to call an international congress in July, 1919, at Amsterdam. This July Congress laid the foundation for the Amsterdam International.
First Congress of the Amsterdam International
What problems did this First Congress solve, and what was its special character? To get an answer to these questions, it is best to allow the Amsterdamers to speak for themselves, for nobody will suspect them of lack of love and respect for their own organization.
Here we read from the official report of the Amsterdam International presented to the Congress of Trade Unions which was held in Rome in April, 1922; this report states as follows: "Although we succeeded in creating unity between the representatives of the trade unions of different countries which not long before had been quarrelling among themselves, the Congress did not give full satisfaction, In discussions on almost every point there were contradictions which, during the many years of the war, artificially flared up and these contradictions came out sharply to the surface. Almost every day, during the Congress, there were new conflicts before we could get a unanimous vote." This is said by the official report. The report was writtten by the Secretary of the Amsterdam International who had to soften all that was really there: and in reality this characterization of the Amsterdam Congress was very mild.
The First Congress of the Amsterdam International made an impression of a meeting of vicious and unleashed nationalists, every one of whom tried to prove that his "fatherland" was "right" during the war, and that their conduct should, therefore, be approved by the workers of all other countries. The representatives from the Allied countries presented an ultimatum to the trade unionists of Germany and Austria, demanding that the latter should in an official declaration admit that Germany was guilty for the war and also recognize the injustice shown by the German trade unions toward the Belgian proletariat. It can be imagined what an impression this made on the German social patriots who were convinced of the correctness of their own point of view just as the French were in theirs.
This demand was put in the form of an ultimatum, refusal of which would prevent the Germans and Austrians being admitted to the International. After long discussions and quarrels, and nationalist contradictions, very sharp in fact but not in form, at last the representatives of the Germans assembled, made a somewhat similar declaration: "We recognize the guilt of Germany in occuping Belgium, and, as it is now shown, we did miscomprehend the general situation; but this is explained by the fact that the working class has to defend its "fatherland" as long as it is in danger."
This explanation is very vague, but the problem of the Allied trade unionists was to get, at any cost, an official document of repentance. These tactics were used by the trade unionists of the Allies parallel with the international diplomatic conference where it was demanded of the German diplomats to admit their guilt. The only difference is that it was done there without any pretense; there they presented the Versailles Treaty and said—"Sign!"
The declaration by Sassenbach, which was a very careful one, brought forth a storm of protest and resentment from the trade unions of Germany. When he returned from the Congress, the whole German Federation of Trade Unions adopted a resolution in which it stated that it took no responsibility for the declaration made by Sassenbach. Thus, on one hand, the guilt was admitted; and, on the other hand, officially repudiated. The question was "decided" for the time being.
Even this one episode characterizes the composition of the Amsterdam International and foretells the possibilities of its future organization. And, in fact, the Amsterdam International was constructed as an international with hegemony of the trade unionists of the Allied countries. In this respect a very curious scene took place at the same Amsterdam Congress. The leader of the international trade union movement was Legien; but the victory of the Allies which brought about the collapse of Germany, brought about the downfall of Legien. Not only was another elected as Chairman, but Legien was not even elected as Vice-Chairman, although Germany was foremost in the number of organized workers.
The representatives of Austrian trade unions perfectly understood the political significance of this fact. They understood that the allies of Germany in the war should also be its allies at Amsterdam, therefore, the Austrian trade unionists reacted to this with a purely coalitionist diplomatic solution of the problem. When one of the positions of Vice-Chairman was offered to the leader of the Austrian unions, Huber, he refused it and made the following statement: "Together with our German comrades we suffered until now; together with them we will suffer in the future."
These incidents, at the birth of the Amsterdam International, throw a curious light not only upon the structure of the International itself. These nationalistic contradictions and altercations of that period appeared also at later times, within the last couple of years, and by this time are leading to the dissolution of those organizations which were supposed to resurrect the traditions of the pre-war world labor movement.
If we will take all the decisions of this First Congress, we will find nothing of importance, except, for a few moments where they dealt with the International Labor Bureau. It is true there were attempts to talk about socialization. As you all know, 1919 was a year of budding "socialization" ideas and projects; but, about that, was more, talk in November 1920 at the London Congress. At the First Congress the participants were glad of the fact that they succeeded in spite of the national contradictions in creating the International.
A question arises: If the national contradictions were so great that they could not be overcome, which is proven by the report of the Congress, why did they create such an international at all? The reason for it is that they had to create an international, otherwise they would have lost all influence over the workers. They had to create this International at any cost, because, right after the war, even the most backward laboring masses demanded some kind of an international organization which would prevent or interfere with any repetition of the events they had just been through. The need for it was very great. Therefore, the nationalistic and patriotic leaders would have been thrown aside if they would have dared to interfere with the formation of an international labor organization.
The creation of the International was dictated, therefore, by the feelings of self-preservation of the reformist leaders, as well as by an attempt on an international scale to influence those institutions which were created as a result of the Versailles Peace.
The London Congress
The next Congress was held at London in November 1920, It occupied itself firstly with the Red International of Labor Unions and then with "socialization," economic questions and financial exchange. One of the leaders of the international trade union movement, the representative of the French Confederation of Labor, Jouhaux was especially busy with the stabilization of the financial unit. It was not by chance that this question was proposed by a representative of France—France, as it is known, is a country of pawn-brokers, and financial questions, questions of banking, stock exchanges, etc., are of especial interest to wide circles of the French bourgeoisie.
But looking over the decisions and resolutions of the London Congress about the stabilization of the monetary unit, we see again that all these decisions resolve around the axis of the League of Nations and the institutions which were created by it.
What should be done in order to stabilize the monetary unit? It is necessary that the League of Nations shall deal with it. That was the decision of the London Congress, What should be done in order to start socialization, with which industry should we begin? First of all, we should approach this very carefully (so carefully that probably nobody can notice it), and after that it is necessary again that the International Labor Bureau of the League of Nations shall take it up. In short, no mattter what the Amsterdam International would take up or start—it would begin with the League of Nations and end with it. All this proves the inherent weakness of the organization of the Amsterdam International and the complete subordination of this organization to the bourgeois institutions which were created as a result of the world war.
The Rome Congress
The next Congress of the Amsterdam International was held in Rome in April 1922. It dealt with the problems of war, reparations, etc. Here, again, we see not one revolutionary decision. At the same time we see that all the aspirations and hopes of the leaders of the Amsterdam International continue to revolve around the same circle as in the first two years, notwithstanding the fact that the danger of war has grown and the reparation problem was very confused. This is the general outline of the work of these three Congresses.
Let us take up the separate questions, but not in a chronological way of the Congresses. Let us consider the theory and practice of the Amsterdam International and, as a result, we will be able to discover our point of view. The problems which are today dividing the world labor movement are mainly the following: the attitude toward the Versailles Treaty, the problems of reparations, the methods of struggle against international reaction and against aggressive capitalism, the attitude toward Fascism, the fight against war, the attitude towards the Revolution and Soviet Russia, and the problem of the United Front.
These are the questions which define the differences between the international trade union organizations.
The Amsterdam International and the Versailles Treaty
We will begin with the Versailles Treaty. We have shown above that the representatives of the trade unions from the Allied countries participated in the drafting of the Thirteenth Paragraph of the Versailles Treaty. Can these leaders of the labor movement take upon themselves the responsibility for everything contained in the Versailles Treaty, or only for that which they inserted in this Treaty? But this would be rather a legalistic than a political solution of the question. It would not be a correct approach to the problem. Because the Versailles Treaty represents somewhat of a unit, and the question is not who has written one or another part of it, but who is upholding this treaty and what are its contents?
It is composed, if we take it as a whole, of proclamations of guilt of the Central Powers, of territorial division of Austria and Germany, of confiscation of the German colonies, disarming Germany, seizing her economic resources, forcing upon Germany colossal economic payments and turning her in general into a second-rate state.
The breaking up of Central Europe and the hegemony of the Allies is the main object of the Versailles Treaty. And those representatives of the workers, who, in one form or another for certain motives upheld or are upholding, separate parts of the treaty, are in a general way upholding all parts of it. We will see this in the problem of reparations and the attitude toward that question of the Amsterdam International.
We can prove as a political fact that the Amsterdam International or separate parts of it, as its representatives, participated in the drafting of separate paragraphs of the Versailles Treaty, upheld the Versailles Treaty, and, more than that, are still upholding it at present. This is not only an historically proven fact, not a question of the past, but of the present.
It is true that the Versailles Treaty is not a child of the Amsterdam International. This International did not create it, but participated indirectly in its creation. It participated in the creation of that ideology which made it possible for the wide working masses to accept that treaty. The Amsterdam International was the great machine of mobilization by the bourgeoisie which was used to obscure the minds of the workers, which brought the wide masses of workers in the Allied countries right after the war to believe that the Versailles Treaty was in reality a victory of "culture, civilization, right," etc.
The Reparation Question
What is the essence of the reparation question? Reparation means replacement. The reparation question is the question of replacing the losses caused by the war. Who should replace these losses? Of course, the guilty ones. It seems that those who are guilty in the war should replace all losses. These were the opinions of the diplomatic representatives. This was the opinion of Foch and others, this is the opinion of the leaders of the trade union movement of the Allied countries. And, as Germany and Austria are the guilty ones, they should replace the losses caused by the war; they should rebuild areas, in short, they should bring Europe back to the pre-war conditions.
Even at the First Congress of the Amsterdam International in one of the resolutions was pointed out the justification of the reparations and the necessity of paying them. That the Germans have to pay, is stated in almost every resolution which was ever adopted by the Amsterdamers. They meet at Amsterdam in order to create an International, and decide: The Germans have to pay; and in London, again: The Germans have to pay; and in Rome, again—the same thing. No matter how many times their Bureau met, every time when they approached the question of the conflict between France and Germany, this problem which keeps Europe on a volcano, they always come to the conclusion that "Recognizing the necessity by Germany to cover the losses, nevertheless, excessive force should not be used, the problem should be turned over to the League of Nations." etc., etc.
Thus, in the question of reparations, the Amsterdam International took a purely Allied position, They forced upon the Germans not only a theoretical admission of the necessity of paying the reparations, but also demanded practical steps of pressure upon their Government in order to bring about the regular payment of the required sums. It is known that even up till now the question of reparations is not settled. The covering of all losses would mean the payment by the Germans of hundreds of milliards in gold, which is more than the financial and economic resources can permit.
To illustrate what these sums mean I will give one example. One German economist took the expenditures of the war for Germany alone and calculated how much would be required in order to turn Germany into a flowering garden in the sense that the next generation would have to work only four hours; and he came to the conclusion that if Germany would spend only half of the money which it spent on the war, for peaceful construction she would be able to make not only Germany but all Central Europe a garden.
At the time of signing the Versailles Treaty they were talking about 400 billion marks in gold. But this figure was so fantastic that they had to reduce it gradually until, in May 1921, it was brought down to 132 billion gold marks. In this manner the final sum of reparations, besides all kinds of deliveries and economic concessions, was brought down to that "small" but, in fact, gigantic contribution.
What have the leaders of the Amsterdam International been doing at a time when these colossal demands were being drawn, demanding from Germany more than she could ever pay? Considering the question of reparations they always brought forward the idea that it is, of course, necessary to pay, in a somewhat decent manner, through the League of Nations, respecting all the "rights" and jurisdictional forms. But the Amsterdamers never went further than the phraseology of "international rights."
We see that to this sore and vital question of present day international politics, to the question which is now dividing the whole world, bringing about conflicts between countries, bringing about the destruction of all Central Europe, to this question the Amsterdam International approached and is still approaching from the Allied point of view, and is demanding that the German workers shall rebuild all that was destroyed by German imperialism. At the same time the Amsterdamers perfectly knew that reparations means for the Germans a further enslavement of the German workers and worsening the conditions of the working masses of Germany.
Judging by this question we can understand the position that this International has in the present day struggle of the working class. I will say more, if all the literature about the Amsterdam International would disappear, or we might say, would burn up, the future historian about one or two hundred years later would be able to judge the position of the Amsterdam International in this epoch of dissolution of capitalism, which we are living through, by its resolution on reparations.
The Problem of Disarmament
The next question is the problem of disarmament. It is known that the war was conducted for the sake of destroying "Militarism." The government leaders of Europe and America promised that as soon as Prussian militarism would be broken, they would begin disarmament, and the people would be relieved of all those military obligations which existed before and after the war. This myth about disarmament and the possibility of disarmament under capitalist society was spread by reformists of all kinds. The role of the reformists during the war was to ennoble all dishonorable motives which the bourgeoisie of every country had.
It seemed that with the victory of the Allies came the time for disarmament, The reformist leaders of the trade union and socialist movement, which for a couple of years had been repeating the pacifist ideas of disarmament, began at the end of the war to talk about it. But nothing came out of all the talk.
At the end of the war the leaders of international politics could not simply deny the idea of disarmament, they are not so foolish as not to use to the limit the specific pacifist feeling created in the masses by the reformists. The idea of disarmament was not denied, but a committee was created by the League of Nations, which from time to time meets and talks over the usefulness of disarmament. To this committee comes representatives of the Amsterdam International trying to prove to the representatives of the governments the usefulness of disarmament, painting those brilliant perspectives which will come about after disarmament is accomplished.
It is characteristic of all parts of the Amsterdam International and also for the International itself that in the question of disarmament their practical proposals never went beyond the borders of the League of Nations.
When we see that every day armaments are growing and that the competition between the former Allies is sharpening, that not only in the line of land or sea forces, but also in the air service, all is being done in preparation for a new war, to appear at such a time before the Commission on Disarmament for the League of Nations with proposals for disarmament is just the same as to preach to wolves the usefulness of vegetarianism. How can we explain such a point of view? With personal lack of comprehension?
We are very little interested in the political foolishness of this or that political leader. After all there is no lack of fools in the world. But, to our regret, in this pacifist ideology of disarming through the League of Nations, which is itself a tool of armed-to-the-teeth imperialism, this certainly proves that there is an influence of the bourgeoisie over the working class. In this ideology are reflected the dim hopes and expectations of a certain part of the proletariat: Somehow to avoid the future war; dodging the class struggle without straining every revolutionary force and without those sufferings with which the social revolution is usually accompanied.
All this is a reflection of the dim pacifist hopes which exist in the working class, and it is the fault of the leaders of the Amsterdam International that instead of destroying these dangerous pacifist illusions in the masses, they were preaching them, giving the question of disarmament, not a revolutionary class character, but a purely bourgeois pacifist one.
For everyone who even slightly understands the existing situation, it is clear that it is impossible to have a voluntary disarmament, that it is possible only to force disarmament. There are two ways of doing this last.
The first type of disarmament is the one that was accomplished after the Versailles Treaty when the French and British disarmed the Germans. This is an imperialist disarmament, which is the disarming by one bourgeoisie of its opponents, arming itself at the same time for a future war. There is another kind of disarmament, the one that we attained when we disarmed the bourgeoisie and armed the workers. The political crime of the leaders of the Amsterdam International is contained not only in that they left the question of disarmament to the League of Nations, but also that they approached the question of disarmament and arming purely from the bourgeois point of view.
We are against war, and therefore, we are for disarmament. And here the reformist theory of disarmament is for us something entirely strange, for according to its purpose, forms, and methods it is in entire contradiction to the way we approach that problem. The hope of disarmament through the League of Nations by solving problems of international jurisdiction, all that is pure nonsense which proves the political short-sightedness of the leaders of the reformist trade union movement.
A curious discussion on disarmament took place not long ago in the British Parliament. The question was raised by the representative of the Labor Party, MacDonald, (present Premier of Britain) who is trying to find means of saving the British Empire by way of disarmament. Premier Baldwin answered him literally as follows: "At present there can be no question of disarmament. In the character and instincts of people there is a striving to fight, it is the instinct of a tiger and perhaps this instinct was given to man in order that by way of struggle he would bring about millenium to his own people." Thus the old sympathetic formula—"A man is a wolf to a man," as we Russians say, is now changed by the leader of British politics into a no-less sympathetic one: "A man is a tiger to a man." And this does not prevent the leaders of the Second and Amsterdam Internationals from approaching the League of Nations with the proposition that they shall disarm themselves. But who is an enemy to himself and who is going to disarm when, with machine guns and cannon can be obtained such wonderful and realistic economic results!
Problems of War against War
The question of disarmament is closely connected with the whole problem of the struggle against war. Of course the Amsterdam International is against war, but how to avoid war, how to fight against it? lf we examine all the resolutions adopted concerning this question by the Amsterdam International, again we will find in them the statement that all conflicts started by one nation against another should be solved by international conferences and by international law. In order to solve all these conflicts, to create some kind of higher court composed of absolutely neutral people, and by that to create that higher institution which will be able to bring about harmony between contradictions and to destroy the military aspirations of separate countries.
The anti-war tactics of the Amsterdam International are characterized very well by the international peace congress which was called by it in December, 1922, at the Hague. To this congress were invited also representatives of the Russian trade unions in order to discuss together the danger of war and methods of fighting against it.
First of all, this congress was peculiar by its social composition. At this Congress, besides the representatives of Amsterdam, the Second and the Second-and-a-Half Internationals, all Internationals, and Secretariats of Industries, there were also representatives of all kinds of pacifist societies which appeared after the war. The bourgeois pacifists are "pacifists" in time of peace, which is not very difficult. But in time of war a great majority of them were with their governments; they were setting one nation upon another, preaching endurance and patience and fight to a finish.
At the Hague there were also such organizations as "For the League of Nations"—"The League for the Rights of Man and Citizen"—"The Society for Bringing About Friendly Relations Between Churches"—"The Union of Christian Socialists," and many other similar societies and unions, in short "Of every animal, a pair." And we, the representatives of the Russian trade unions, found ourselves in this mixed society.
At this Congress there was talk about the necessity to conduct propaganda and to bring up the youth against war by way of lectures, movies, etc. I am a lover of movies, and have nothing against them, but when delegates from all countries meet for the sake of fighting against war, just prior to the occupancy of the Ruhr, and talk about the movies, the education of the youth as a separate activity in this problem, it is clear that there is something wrong with the struggle against war.
All the resolutions adopted in this connection had for their purpose to satisfy everybody. As long as six hundred people came together, all peaceful and in a benign mood, as the Germans would say gemutlich, why should any one of them be angered? As a result, resolutions were worked out for all tastes. Of course to satisfy Russians is very difficult, and we brought into this peaceful idyl a plain disharmony, but this was only because we have a bad, Bolshevik temper and it is most difficult to satisfy us.
In this resolution, which was adopted mainly in order that they should be able to digest their food after the Congress as well as before, besides their reliance upon the League of Nations which was supposed to arrange everything, there is also a threat—and this was a debatable question—a threat that in case of the danger of war all the organizations should proclaim a general strike.
When we read the resolution and came to this point we said: "Why all the waste of words; if you are promising a strike in the distant future, let us better make it in the present; as long as you are ready to organize a strike, in view of the threatened occupation of the Ruhr, let us start the strike the 15th of January (we were debating that question on the 17th of December), and by that action we will surely prevent the occupation of the Ruhr, as the French imperialists and allies of France will see that the workers of all countries represent quite a solid power."
Our proposal about a strike not distant in time or place, but right there and on the 15th of January, brought great excitement, for it is quite one thing to talk about a strike in general, and quite another to talk about one in the concrete—these are two entirely different things, and our resolution was, of course, not adopted.
Our other proposals, it is true not of the moving-picture character, as for instance to conduct an anti-militaristic agitation among the white and colored soldiers, were not only rejected but brought forth objection from the Chairman of the Congress and the Chairman of the Amsterdam International, the famous hero of "Black Friday," J. H. Thomas, who said, "It is not fitting for us to agitate among the soldiers." Of course, if it isn't fit, then, only the moving pictures bourgeois at that—are left. If it is not acceptable to conduct the class struggle then nothing else can be imagined but the pacifist resolutions.
I will not go into details about the work of this peculiar-in-all-respects Congress. All the Amsterdam congresses are like the heroines of Gogol: "pleasant in all respects," or "just pleasant." This Congress was "plesant in all respects," and mainly because it satisfied absolutely everybody, except, of course, the Russians.
It is necessary to say that even on the question of strikes, in their drafting, on the question of educating the youth, there were also curiosities. One of the bourgeois pacifists who did not understand that a threat of strike was inserted in the resolution merely for the gallery—(that is, for the workers—"You see what kind of revolutionists we are")—tried to prove that the strike is, of course, a good thing, but first it is necessary to educate the youth and the children to an understanding of it. After all, this declaration of the bourgeois pacifist does not contradict the general spirit of the decisions of the Hague Congress.
This was a typical bourgeois pacifist convention and although there were many present as representatives of labor, in its character it was a bourgeois pacifist meeting. Its fundamental desire was to destroy war without touching capitalist society, it tried to interfere with war not by wry of the class struggle, but through the League of Nations; it tried to interfere with war by creating a bourgeois pacifist bloc; refusing a united front with us, the Communists.
Being scared by my formula presented to them: "If you want peace, conduct a class war," the delegates grumbled: "We came to the Congress to fight for peace, and the Russian delegates propose to us that we must conduct a class war." And this was said by the so-called leaders of the labor movement. For them there was no difference between a war and a class war. All the ideology of the leaders of the Amsterdam International plainly showed itself at this Congress; here fraternized the pacifist bourgeoisie with the right wing of the labor movement. It is clear that bourgeois pacifists invited to the Congress would not vote for a resolution against capitalist society.
The Congress had for its purpose the collection of all pacifism there was in the world's labor movement and among the more advanced bourgeoisie, and to tell to the governments of the world: "You see what power we represent! If you will dare again to fling humanity into war, we are ready, even for a strike!" Later on we found out indirectly that when the leaders of the Amsterdam {{SIC}Internation|International}} were discussing a strike, among themselves, they laughed at it. They considered it a necessary ornament: It doesn't look good to pass a resolution just about moving pictures, it was necessary to mention a strike so that the workers could see that there was a will to fight.
Thus, instead of demonstrating force, weakness was demonstrated.
When, at the Congress, we proposed to the Amsterdamers a United Front, the reporter of the Political Committee, the leader of the Holland Social-Democracy, Troelstra, said, "We will agree to a United Front with the Communists only after they pass a quarantine." But with the bourgeois pacifists they did agree on a united front without a quarantine. But which will keep the other in quarantine is to be seen.
I think that from this characterization of the attitude of the Amsterdam International to the Versailles Treaty, to the problem of disarmament, to the question of fighting against war, can already be made a logical conclusion as to what the Amsterdam International represented in itself, even if we did not know how it might conduct itself in other cases and on other questions.
The Aggression of Capital
I have already pointed out that the end of the war was coincident with the development of the reformist illusions. If we would try to ascertain the relations between the growth of unrest among the workers, the growth of the reformist illusions, and the compromises along reformist lines by the bourgeoisie, we will find that they are very closely related. But if we will take the last years we will see that the social-reformism almost reached the peak in about the middle of 1920. I said "almost" for, in fact, they did not reach anywhere, because we cannot consider as an attainment the creation of the International Labor Bureau, participation in the Committees, the adoption by the Washington Conference of the Labor Program, etc.
At the beginning of 1920 in the world labor movement doubts arose in connection with the new economic orientation. The years of growth of the labor movement we can consider from about the end of 1918 during the whole of 1919 and to about the middle of 1920; marked on one hand, by the stormy growth of the trade union movement, and on the other, the retreat of the bourgeoisie in the sphere of social reforms: The establishment of the eight-hour day, the increase of talk about socialization, the creation in many countries of committees for socialization, etc.
From the middle of 1920, begins the new turn in economics, and the crucial point is reached—the crisis in international trade and in production. It begins in May, in Japan, spreads to America and together with the falling of wholesale prices, did not only stop the retreat of the bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie began to advance. This advance of capital continued through 1920, 1921 and 1922 and has not stopped yet in 1923.
The advance of capital begins together with the economic crisis. What is the purpose of this advance of capital, and how did the international labor movement react to it? The purpose of the advance of capital was to lower the cost of production as the world market began to slacken and competition increased. There was a surplus of commodities, which although needed by the masses, could not be bought by them on account of high prices. This caused the employers to force down the cost of production in order to place cheaper goods on the market. It was necessary to find the line of least resistance, and this line happened to be labor-power. Not by perfecting the technique of production, not by increasing the volume of production, but by forcing down the price of labor-power, by taking away all that was granted labor socially, by "explaining" the eight hour day, by cutting down the wages, by taking away gains—here is the line along which the advance of capital goes.
I mention one instance in order to show the volume of this advance, The official statistics of the reduction of wages in 1921 affected 7,000,000 workers in England; during the whole year of 1921, the workers lost in wage reductions five million pounds sterling per week. In 1922 the workers lost in wages six million pounds sterling per week. If we take both years together the loss in wages will reach the colossal sum of two and three quarters billions of dollars ($2,750,000,000). This great cut in wages is of real significance for these billions which were cut from wages lowered production costs and permitted competition on the world market.
The "Fight" of the Amsterdam International Against the Capitalist Advance
Now, what did the Amsterdam International as an organization do in order to fight against the capitalist advance? First of all, in the present economic struggle, trade union lines are too narrow; the struggle goes beyond national borders and that is why the International exists, to internationalize the struggle itself. We find ourselves in such a phase of the development of society, in which only on the international scale is it possible to attain a victory even in the purely economic sphere. Even in the question of wages, the international market regulates the price. And from the Amsterdam International there was during all the time of capitalist advance not even one act of international character, no international action, no international demonstration which would place the International against advancing capital as a unit. There were only isolated actions, separate economic strikes, separate conflicts in separate countries.
This characteristic of the Amsterdam International and its organizations is not only in the prevalence of nationalism over internationalism, but also in the prevalence of craft over industrial and class interests within the boundaries of the one nation. This is especially clear from the labor struggle in England. At the time of the famous miners' strike at the beginning of 1921, after the strike lasted for thirteen weeks they were left alone, isolated. And such organizations as the union of railway and transport workers, which had been with them in the Triple Alliance did not aid them. And the day on which these unions refused to aid the miners went down in history as "Black Friday."
In 1922, there was a great struggle; the lockout of the British metal workers. A few hundred thousand metal workers (36 unions) were drawn into the struggle. Did the other unions help the metal workers? No! And the metal workers of other countries did not help either. Separate regiments on separate fronts are conducting the fight, and not only do they get no help from the International, but they are defeated by the lack of aid from the workers of their own territory.
The tactics of the Amsterdam International, that is, the prevalence of the craft over the class, the prevalence of national over international interests, brings about the defeat of the separate parts of this International in the struggle against perfectly organized capital.
I know very well the activities of the Amsterdam International during this period and may, entirely objectively considering its activity, state that nothing was done; and this lack of action on an international scale is the main characteristic of the Amsterdam International. If not in principle, at least in practice, for this International based on national organizations every one of which defends the interests of its bourgeois state, such an International naturally is unable to fight. And during the whole period of capitalist advance we did not see a united struggle, we did not see even a serious attempt of economic aid to assist one or the other sectors of the social front.