Letter

To the central committee of the French Communist Party.

Dear comrades!

In the letter offered for your consideration, we would like to touch on a number of questions, which, in our opinion, are either on the party’s agenda or are in need of an explanation by the Communist International of its opinion of us.

The British strike is over thanks to the treachery of the reformist leaders, thanks to the lack of revolutionary skills in the British proletariat, a stalemate, or rather, a partial defeat of the working class. We need, for that reason, right now are faced for that reason with the necessity of examining very seriously the lessons of this of the British strike with regard to the French workers’ movement. First and foremost, it is necessary to note that despite the wave of proletarian solidarity that rolled through on the continent, our parties, and in particular, the French communist party and the Untied Confederation of Labor did not do everything to support that movement. As far as we can judge from here, in the actions of the party and the Untied Confederation of Labor there was a sort of apathy. And it should be said openly that this apathy was not only your sin, but also that of other sections of the Communist International.

*) The British strike thanks … to the treachery of the leaders ended with a defeat for the proletariat. And nonetheless if we do not count the class struggles events in Germany in 1918 and 1919, this strike was the largest phenomenon event since the times of the October revolution of 1917. The significance of this strike for the British working class is tremendous. In the life of the communist international it signifies … mass party in England and liberation of the British proletariat from the trade unionist illusions. A general economic strike carrying exclusively an economic character in English can can no longer be. There can be from. This is a finished step in the movement. A new strike like that will inevitably turn into a struggle by the British proletariat for power. And in this is the main lesson for … working class of Great Britain. But outside the borders of England too the consequences of this strike will be great.

IMEL Archive

The fact that the British strike is among those most important events that have taken place in the world working class movement after the October Revolution of 1917. As bitter as it may be for us to acknowledge the retreat of the British working class, despite that, the British strike is closing opening with itself a new step not only in the development of the British workers’ movement, but for that of the entire continent. In particular in France in the near future we will be stand in a French way before the start of a new assault by French capital against the working class attempts but he bourgeoisie to lower the level of material existence for the French proletariat. The French The entire capitalist press notes that the British strike poses an all-European problem of rehabilitating capitalism at the expense of the lowered material conditions for the entire working class. If we take into consideration the current rise in the wave of strikes in France, then that signifies that in the upcoming weeks and months you can find yourselves before extremely serious class clashes in France and you need to be ready for that in the first place.

A second consequence of the current British crisis with regard to France will be the demand by British capital of regulating the French dollar debt, and that, in its right, will worsen the financial situation for France even more and create new difficulties for the French government.

Third, already you can observe how the “inflationist” circles of the French bourgeoisie are using the current difficulties faced by the British government in order to prove that the introduction of the gold parity in England facilitated the British economic crisis, that the sole redemption for France from a repeat of analogous events is further inflation. And these tendencies will strengthen and

to have a decisive effect on the policies of the French government, and in today’s conditions that means further ruin for the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry in France and a growth of mass discontentment among them

A fourth consequence of the British strike is an increase in aggressive tendencies of French imperialism.

The British imperialist circles come out badly beaten from the current clash of classes in England. The British powers have been dealt a most serious blow. This position, of course, will not be missed out on by the French bourgeoisie, which will try in all the colonies where its interests cross with the interests of British imperialism to conduct an offensive policy. The French working class can find itself facing new colonial escapades in the near future.

This is why we find it highly necessary that the French communist party immediately dedicate the most serious attention to the study of the influence of the British strike and British crisis on the economy of France and, in accordance with that, lay out its tactical goals.

On the other hand, the party needs to most attentively study the British experience, both in regard to its strong sides and its weak sides. What is particularly educational for the French proletariat in this experience is the significance of the mass trade union organizations. Only thanks to the fact that British trade unions were able to organize in their ranks, in the course of a few decades, the widest masses of the working class, were they able bring together a historically unprecedented movement. With the British example the French working class needs to understand and expose the weaknesses of its trade union movement and its party organization. Already in the resolution of the Extended Plenum of the IKKI on

the French question we have noted the main task standing before the party and the Untied Confederation of Labor, consisting of the need for them to organizationally grasp wider masses of the French proletariat. In light of the happenings in England, this task is now taking on a serious significance. We find that it would be very timely now to start a recruitment campaign both for trade unions and the party.

Another lesson of the British strike can be the strengthening of the popularity of trade union unity. Over the course of the past few years we did not know a movement that could unite around itself such wide masses of the continental proletariat as the movement of the British workers. Showing international solidarity with regard to the British strike especially vividly pushed forth the idea of class unity, and we need to use these sentiments in the near future. That is exactly how we need to pose the idea of trade union unity before the working masses of France today.

At the same time we must subject the weaknesses of the leadership of the British strike to ruthless criticism. Never before has history given a more vivid example of the contradicts between reformist methods and an objectively revolutionary mass movement by the working class. The General Council lost that strike and did not extract from it all the necessary outcomes specifically because no matter what it insisted on remaining on the ground of “legality” and constantly retreated in the face of the provocateur behavior of the leadership. The tactics of defense and retreat factually doomed the strike. The British example teaches us about how

anti-revolutionary pure syndicalism is, binding itself with the exclusive frames of economic struggle. And because in France we have recidivism of this pure syndicalism, then the party needs to use the example of the British strike to show how important political struggle is for the proletariat. Without a well unified, disciplined revolutionary party directing a movement like that, the proletariat will inevitably move from defeat to defeat. We believe that all of these questions need to become the subject of a thoughtful study in the period preceding your congress. We also believe that specifically now, after the British strike, which is creating a transformation in the consciousness of the European proletariat, you need to also include the trade union question in the agenda for your congress. This is even more pressing considering the fact that the leadership of the party and the United Confederation of Labor was extremely weak during the latest strikes in France. And at the same time your May demonstration shows what good ground you have now inside the French working class.

As for your congress, we believe it to be completely correct that you decided to move it to the month of June. It needs to be seriously prepared for. It does. So that each workers’ cell can discus in advance all the most important questions of a tactical nature that are standing before you. Only that way can you state the facts consolidate the party and liquidate the remains of the former factional and divisive attitudes in it. Already the resolution of the IKKI on the French question provides a basis for collaboration between all comrades who understand the platform of the IKKI. We have no need to repeat in this letter that all decisions made by the expanded IKKI, of both a political and organizational nature, need to remain in place. Our support for the Central Committee is fully guaranteed. If at your Plenum on April 1 there was some room for echoes of the former debates, then without a doubt, in the process of future work, they will die down. We see it as our goal to correct every miscalculation and error in a friendly manner from here, if those are found in the work of the party and I believe

note in the margins: we?

, that you will not complain about us for that. As for the internal party orientation, we believe that just like before, the party needs to form a unified internal party front against the right, because if such worker elements as Angler are prepared to honestly realize the decisions of the IKKI, then that cannot be said about other groups of intelligentsia and groups standing outside the boundaries of the party. The statements that are being made by such representatives of the right as Paaz are by no means indicative of their readiness to loyally collaborate with the party. These elements are only waiting for new difficulties in order to once again stab the party in the back. That is exactly why our party cannot make the mistake that was made in the French commission of the IKKI, when instead of concentrating our fire on the right wing, groupings standing on almost the same platform and having only a shade of difference in opinion, we were struggling among ourselves. We are satisfied to point out now that this line is beginning to be conducted by your Politburo. The letters that we have received from comrade Humboldt indicate that in the work of driving out those attitudes, your leadership in the Central Committee has attained serious success.

In the discussion itself, both inside the Central Committee and in the press, we are seeing some questions being posed and discussed by comrades incorrectly. First about the tactic of the united front. To judge on this uestion we are using the protocols of the meetings of the Central Committee from April 1. It is absolutely correct, as some comrades have stated, that in utilizing the tactic of the united from the party should discover more bravery and decisiveness. Abstentionism in the work of conducting that tactic was until recent times one of the main ailments plaguing our communist movement, but at the same time we believe that the extremely inclusive understanding given by comrade Marion with regard to that tactic and in use with the bourgeois radical organizations, is very dangerous. We cannot allow for a lackadaisical approach in using this tactic locally, otherwise we will be met with a number of unexpected surprises. And we are convinced by that through the speech made by comrade Gare, who shared his observations at the Central Committee meeting of how this tactic was conducted in Bretain. From this speech we can see that locally you were not conducting a tactic of a united front, but a coalition between our party and the left bloc. Our party is getting lost among a number of bourgeois organizations. With such a system of conducting the united front. If we take into consideration that in France there is a tradition of the left bloc, then it becomes clear how harmful those types of mistakes can be. Of course, we are not denying that under some conditions for concrete reasons it is acceptable to have agreements with organizations like the Human and Citizen Rights Defense League. But the main condition for such collaboration needs to be a leadership role for the proletarian party in the planned campaign. In Bretain you have something completely different. Our party was being dragged along by the elements of the left bloc specifically because it lost the perspective of the hegemony of the proletariat in the struggle of petty bourgeoisie against big capital.

“Of course, comrade Marion said at the Central Committee meeting that there may be mistakes in the utilization of the tactic of the united front, but specifically at the present moment, when the utilization of that tactic is happening almost everywhere, when our comrades are leading a campaign for the realization of the united front, we cannot jerk them back every minute, seeing nothing but mistakes and deviations everywhere.

As for your congress, we believe it to be completely correct that you decided to move it to the month of June. In the current environment there needs to be a serious discussion of the questions standing now before your workers’ movement. Only that way can you consolidate the party and liquidate the remains of the former factional and divisive attitudes in it. Already the resolution of the IKKI on the French question provides a positive basis for collaboration between all comrades who are genuinely striving for party unity and for the fulfillment of the enormous task that is being placed on it by the upcoming events.

We have no need to repeat in this letter that all of our decisions made by the expanded IKKI need to remain in place. Our support for the Central Committee is guaranteed. If at your Plenum on April 1, gathered to listen to the report about the decisions of the IKKI, there was some room for echoes of the former debates, then without a doubt, in the process of future work, our new tasks will facilitate the regrouping of our internal party strengths and liquidate everything that is in the way of us completing these new tasks. France we need, like before, to form a unite internal party front against the right, because if such worker elements as Angler, are prepared to honestly realize the decisions of the IKKI, then tgroups standing outside the party will not miss a single chance to deal it a blow during a hard time. The declarations that were made by such right wing representatives like Paaz are by no means significant of their readiness for loyal collaboration with the party. These elements are only waiting for new difficulties to once again stab the party in the back. For that very reason our party cannot make the same mistakes that were made by the French comrades in the French IKKI commission, when instead of focusing our fire on the right wing and groups standing at almost the same and the same platform and having only shades of difference in opinion, they struggled among themselves. We are content to state that this line is being conducted in your Politburo. The letters that we have received from comrade Humbalt indicate that in the work of driving out these old attitudes, your leading group in the Central Committee has reached serious success.

Moving to the questions of the discussion which precedes your congress, we would like to first note one general shortcoming. “Humanité” unsystematically prints all articles coming in on discussio questions. It does not provide an answer to each mistake defended in those articles. The discussion, therefore, and control over it is slipping out of the hands of the Central Committee, and instead of facilitating principled clarity, discipline and correctness in the position of our party, such a situation leads can lead to a confusion in questions and can bring unrest to the party. For that reason we recommend that comrades, in posing correct discussions, highlight articles touching on the main principle questions, accompanying each of those articles with an immediate answer to them. In the discussion itself, both inside the Central Committee and in the press, we see a few questions completely incorrectly being posed both by individual comrades and the Secretariat. in the press and at Central Committee meetings. Among those questions is the problem of the tactic of the united front. Having familiarized ourselves with the protocol of the Central Committee meeting from April 1, we believe that comrade Marion gave incorrect explanations of the tactic of the untied front in utilizing it with bourgeois radical organizations. Comrade Gare’s speech convinced us that with such an interpretation of the tactic of the united front, in reality we will receive the politics of the left bloc, in which our party is completely lost. Comrade Gare showed us on the experience of Bretain what sorts of consequences can follow the utilization of the united front tactic with the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry, when the party or an organization loses the perspective of the hegemony of the proletariat in that struggle.

If we are drawing your attention to the threats on the right, then that is because the tactic of attracting the middle classes and peasantry to the side of the proletariat in France, where there is a very deep strong tradition of the left bloc, can, with the mistakes made by us, lead to the replacement of a “united front” and blocking with radical elements in the bourgeoisie. Of course, we are not denying that under some conditions for specific reasons we can come into agreements with organizations such as the Human and Citizen Rights Defense League. But the main condition for such a collaboration has to be a leadership role for the proletarian party in the planned campaign. In Bretain you have something completely different. Our party was being dragged along by elements of the left bloc. For that reason we find it useful to note the following as a directive:

1) Our party needs to first have a goal of creating a united proletarian front, seeing as only the unification of the main cadres of the proletariat around the slogans of the party will put the idea of proletarian hegemony on firm ground in the struggle both for it and the intermediary layers of the population and the peasantry against the French financial aligarchy.

2) The party needs to have particular strength and clarity in all of its articles, speeches and party decisions in pushing the idea of working class hegemony in the struggle of the working masses against French capital. Only a clear posing of a question of that hegemony will destroy the criticisms made by reformist leaders from Lafayette Street about how the communists are losing class boundaries and are returning to the former inter-class theory of old French socialism.

3) In the struggle for the middle classes and peasantry, our party should not seek an ally in the face of the existing petty bourgeois radical organizations, such as: the Human and Citizen Rights Defense League, the Association of Free-Thinkers, and finally, the Franco-Masonic lounges, to organize the wide masses of the petty bourgeoisie on the basis of their economic interests. In our speeches we need to show the masse of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry that these old radical organizations, which have an exclusively political nature, have become obsolete, that part of the agenda is the question of the necessity of economic unification of intermediary classes for defense against robbery … by big capital. Exposing the incoherence, halfness and cowardice of all of these petty bourgeois organizations, passed down from the last wave to the new period of class struggle in France, constitutes one of the chiefest tasks for the French communist party.

It is also necessary to note the mistake in the party discussion on the question of the line of behavior of the communist party in times of war. Without a doubt the formulation that was given in drafting that line by comrade Renault Canne is incorrect. According to his thoughts it would appear that in a moment of war declaration, the peasantry has to stay at home, and the working class needs to go straight to the barracks and take up arms to create a revolution. All the difficulties costs, therefore, of the creation of the revolution, have to fall on the working class. The peasantry receives the privileged position of a class reaping the ready fruits of the workers’ victory. Of course, such a point of view speaks more than anything to the instinctive militarism of the Breton peasants, but it can by no means be the tactic that the party can recommend to the masses. Our old tactic consisted of the fact that we never recommended that the masses should stay home, not betray the slogan of the party and its tactical goal. We always called the masses to engage in active struggle against war, and in that the Bolsheviks always differed from the pacifist preacher of such antimilitarists as, for example, Domel Nuven Guis, but we believe that there is an equally substantial mistake in the Secretariat’s response to comrade Renault Jean’s article.

We are including a full quote that is indicative of the fact that the practice of the party in a time of war in Morocco is far better than its theory. For example, in the answer to Renault Jean it says:”

“First we have to stress that when the bourgeoisie starts a war, that means that it has already been able to attract the masses with that idea, and that in a moment of patriotic drunkenness, a general strike or uprising are entirely immediately impossible, seeing as we cannot create a general strike or revolution when the bourgeoisie has the majority of the working masses behind it. To count, as Renault Jean is doing, on the idea that immediate struggle against the regime from the side of the mobilized workers with the help of sabotaging the capitalist machine by railroad workers, postal workers and metalworkers, with the help of the organization there is no resistance from the peasantry — this is a purely utopian perspective. Experience shows that armed struggle against the bourgeois government becomes possible only in times of the first failures, when among the masses at the front and in the rear skepticism and disappointment is born as a consequence of the losses, the duration of the war and the economic difficulties…”

When in the first days of the war of 1914 Lenin suggested the slogan of transforming gthe imperialist war into a civil war, he did that because he clearly thought about the impossibility of a decisive opposition capable of using the war in order to overturn the capitalist regime”.

This is an incorrect posing of the question, leading in reality can create the impression of pessimism and passivity. Your entire campaign against the war disproves this theory. And at the same time, traces of that theory are present in the Ivry Congress resolution. For that reason we would recommend that you edit that part of your resolution. Ivry

Also inaccurate is the comrades’ posing of the question of the worker-peasant bank. First of lal, we would not like to be misunderstood that we are doubting any attempt organ by the workers’ party to organizationally and materially fix itself in the frames of the capitalist regime. On the contrary, the initiatives of the comrades who put forth the idea about the necessity of a workers’ bank serving the revolutionary needs of the workers’ movement needs to be supported carefully studied. This experience needs to be studied very seriously, and taken note of But in studying this experience we need to brush aside all mistaken inclinations all exaggerated understandings of the role of such a bank. But We believe that the tone of the propaganda that has been taken by the party press is incorrect. It is incorrect, for example, when comrade Pichon, secretary of the Federation of Renters, writes:

The capitalist regime forces workers to make savings” to enter those savings into the Worker-Peasant Bank is to struggle against that regime”.

An even less fitting tone can be found in the organ printed on that question, “The worker-peasant Bank”

Moreover we think that the entire tone of this agitation, inappropriate and not fitting for the line of our party, that the pestilence of creating workers’ banks, threatening to transform trade unions and other workers’ organizations into financial enterprises of a capitalist nature, is extremely strong. We know what forms this tendency takes in the present time in America. The American anti-proletarian experience with workers’ banks is something the European reformists try to bring over onto the scarce European soil. And this circumstance forces us to ponder deeply and be careful to avoid sowing reformist illusions in the working class. And that, unfortunately, cannot be said of the character of that propaganda that was developed around the “worker-peasant” bank. We hope to have more specific discussions with comrade Maran on this topic, where we hope, with his help we can eliminate all the defects and mistakes in this difficult matter.

Finally, we find it necessary to figure out our perspective on the question of the tactics of our party with regard to socialists. Here there are two possibilities: either we aim to create a left wing inside the French socialist party, which would bring elements of disorganizations into the party and bring over the best worker elements with the plan that when the situation ripens, this wing should break away from the socialist party and become a part of the communist party. The French comrades tended to defend that perspective at the last Extended Plenum.

Another tactical maneuver consists of immediately pulling away all the workers who are ready to koi our party in more or less compact groups, and bring them into our ranks. We believe that the resolution of that question in one way or another depends in the end on the tempo of the events. In moments when the working class leans left particularly fast, the second tactic is preferable; in a period of a slow ripening of revolutionary tendencies inside the workers’ movement it is necessary to know how to wait, organize and prepare that transition. We believe that in the event of a positive outcome in the British strike and a strengthening of revolutionary fermentation in France, you will need to pose the question of a departure of all the honest workers currently standing in opposition to the official line of the socialist party. If in the Confederation of Labor from Lafayette Street, in light of its proletarian membership, we need to aim to create a left wing, then that tactic is not yet necessary in the socialist party, which is highly heterogeneous in its social makeup.

Such is the circle of questions that we believe is necessary to shed light on and touch on in the letter we are sending you

With a communist Greeting

At the same time the struggle for international unity of the movement forward, in any case, remains to be one of the most important tasks for all the communist parties, in particular the communist party of France. The bankruptcy of the British General Council should not only not weaken our campaign for professional unity, but on the contrary, should serve as an impulse to strengthen it. For the coming period the Amsterdammers will try to use our inescapable polemic critique of the actions against the General Council in the direction of breaking our ties with the British workers. But the bankruptcy failure bankruptcy of the British General Council will not stop our beginning closeness with the best part of the British proletariat. A few illusions have been broken regarding the official leaders of the British General Council. These leaders have exposed themselves — some as direct agents of the bourgeoisie, others as spineless supporters of the reformists. And the movement for unity itself must grow stronger as a result of the general strike in England. Our tactic of the united front — in particular, in the area of the professional movement — remains wholly in place. It never excluded, but always assumed the necessity of exposing and struggling against treacherous leaders.

Even before the British strike, a series of spontaneous economic strikes began in France. As far as we can tell from here, the leadership of these spontaneous strikes was very weak. At the same time, we have every reason to believe that this movement will grow. The party and the Unitarian Confederation of Labor need to take the leadership of this movement into their hands and find a way to connect it with a serious, broad campaign for professional unity.

x x

The problem of stabilization and the economic situation in France. The British strike, despite having ended with a direct defeat of the workers, has proven that the analysis given by the Comintern was absolutely right. No matter how much the international bourgeoisie is celebrating the defeat of the general strike in England now, that strike showed one thing: even British capitalism, the richest capitalism in all of Europe, stands on a volcano. The previous exclusive economic power of British imperialism has been shaken beyond repair. If the British capitalists are able to use the defeat of the workers and move to some sort of “rationalization” of industry, if it — undoubtedly — tries to use the defeat to secure its position and strengthen the “stabilization”, then we have no doubt that it will fail. The underground pulses will repeat with greater and greater strength. The events in England have proven entirely that the debate around the problem of stabilization is a done debate. The British strike, despite its direct outcome, has international historical significance and proves with great visibility how weak and how wobbly the partial stabilization of capitalism is.

The economic situation in France is also not improving, but is rather worsening. The new, rather significant fall of the franc has proven that very observably. Some of your delegates at the latest extended Comintern Executive Committee found that the overall theses proposed by the Comintern Executive Committee somewhat dramatize things regarding the economic difficulties faced by the French bourgeoisie. It is significant that the same was said by some British comrades regarding the analysis of the situation in England. Now it is proven that these doubts were insubstantial, and that the analysis given by the Executive Committee of the Comintern was absolutely correct.

There is no doubt that the economic difficulties of French capitalism will grow. There is no doubt that the crisis will become more difficult. The overall assessment of the economic situation in France given in a detailed resolution at the last session of the extended IKKI is doubtlessly correct. It needs to enter the flesh and blood of the party. It needs to lie at the core of all tactical plans for the near future. It needs to play a central role in all discussions at the upcoming party congress.

x x

x

Regarding the internal party situation. Already the last party congress in Clichy correctly put forth the slogan of normalization consolidation of all the forces of the party. With even more fortitude the same slogan needs to be put forth at the upcoming party congress. A final consolidation of the party — that is the chief task in the internal party arena. On what basis should that final consolidation take place? Of course, on the basis of the decisions of the latest extended IKKI. and the presidium of the IKKI

There is no doubt that it is on the basis of these very decisions that consolidation will become possible. With regard to the right the extended IKKI in full agreement with the Central Committee of the FCP posed the task of separating the healthier proletarian element from the right opposition and bring those worker elements into the work of the party. For that very reason the IKKI had so much patience with the right wing, not allowing for a wide implementation of the methods of expulsion from the party the IKKI kept the task of differentiating the French right wing group. This was evidently fully successful. The worker elements in the right group, the representative from whom at the extended IKKI was comrade Angler, stated that are honestly ready to bring to life the decisions of the last IKKI session. We must welcome this. The elements that stand with Angler’s position needs to be brought in to our work. Which does not make that loyal group exempt from principled criticism. And against the elements of the right that continue and will continue to move against the majority of the FCP and against the decisions of the IKKI, of course, there needs to be the most unrestrained struggle on part of the FCP in the spirit of the latest decisions by the Executive Committee of the Comintern.

That requires a maximal rallying of all the comrades standing on the ground of the decisions of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. We were content to read the message of our representative comrade Humboldt regarding the fact that the debates that were happening inside the French delegation in Moscow during the extended IKKIare beginning to die down and that the disagreements are beginning to die out. We express hope that they will die out completely.

It should be clear that support from the Executive Committee of the Comintern for the Central Committee of the FCP is fully guaranteed. The upcoming congress, of course, will be put together by the Central Committee and all the other leading organs of the party in whatever way they deem necessary. But we think that we were not mistaken when at the last extended Executive Committee [meeting] of the Comintern, after after a detailed familiarization with the situation in the French party, we said that we support both the current primary leading group, - the Central Committee of the party *) of the group of comrade Somar, which should bring to close leadership of all party matters, on one hand, comrades Dorio and Monmousseau, and on the other hand, comrade Cachen

In the IKKI Presidium pass the following decision:*) Note. Presidium Decision reads: “Regarding personal permutations in the F. C. P. Politburo the FCP Central Committee should decide itself, and in all of these permutations that have a goal of ensuring a more stable majority in the Politburo, headed by general secretary comrade Semar, it is necessary to make it a mandatory condition to bring comrades Monmousseau, Dorio and Cachen to tight collaboration and soon to participation in leadership.”

Moving to the questions of the discussion that precedes your congress, we would like to first note one general shortcoming. “Humanité” unsystematically prints articles that come in on discussion questions. It does not immediately give any reply to each mistake defended in those articles. Therefore control over the discussion slips out of the hands of the Central Committee and the entire discussion takes on a chaotic character. Instead of facilitating the principled clarity, discipline and correctness of our party’s position, such a system can only lead to a confusion of the question. For that reason we recommend that when deciding on adequate discussions, comrades highlight discussion articles touching on the chief principal questions, accompanying each of them with an immediate answer.

Regarding the united front. The protocols of the Central Committee meeting from April I showed us that in this question you are far from having the necessary clarity. It is accurate that the party has up to this point used the united front tactic with insufficient energy and courage — especially. In the area of the professional movement. The workers’ conferences called by the party back in the day undoubtedly presented a serious level of success in the work of establishing a united front. But that matter was not secured organizationally, it was not systematically developed any further.

Some comrades, it appears, are inclined to throw themselves into another extreme. The proposals by Dorio and Marion, We are hearing voices that if they we correctly are relayed in the Central Committee protocols, boil down to the fact that it is being proposed in the party understood your debates on the Central Committee protocol from April 1 in favor of a united front of the party with the left bourgeois parties, are undoubtedly incorrect. We believe such a decision of the question to be incorrect. This is especially convincing in the speech by comrade Gare, who shared his observations at the Central Committee meeting regarding how the tactic of the united front was conducted in Bretain. In reality the party has in a number of cases in Bretain been dragged along by the elements of the left bloc. This is something completely unacceptable. We can and must sometimes use organizations like the Human and Citizen Rights Defense League for our aims, but not for one minute can we forget that this organization is nothing other than an organization of the “radical” bourgeoisie. Participation in it by individual social pacifists does not change that. Speaking of a united front with that League isn’t necessary. Our goal: to direct our attention primarily at the trade unions and at the unorganized working masses. The tactic of the united front needs to be employed here first.

We find it useful in connection with this question to put forth the following directives: 1) in conducting the tactic of the united front our party needs to first keep in mind the goal of establishing a united proletarian front, seeing as only the rallying of the main cadres of the proletariat around our slogans of the party puts the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the struggle against big capital on firm ground. in the struggle of both it and the intermediary strata of the population and the peasantry against the French financial aligarchy; 2) the party needs to use special fortitude in all of its written and spoken appearances, in all of its agitation it must stress the idea of the hegemony of the working class in the struggle of the working masses against French capital in conducting the tactic of the united front with the working masses of the non-proletarian classes. Such a resolution of the question of that hegemony will reduce to nothing the attacks by the reformist demagogues from Lafayette Street, who are accusing our party of losing class boundaries; 3) in the struggle for influence over the ruining petty bourgeoisie peasantry, our party needs to seek not only allies among the existing petty bourgeois radical organizations, such as the Human and Citizen Rights Defense League, various free-thinkers’ associations, as much as it needs to organize the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry outside of and against these organizations on the basis of their economic interests. These old petty bourgeois radical organizations, having an exclusively political character, are a reflection of the past epoch and cannot claim to be defending the layers of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry, which are crumbling under the blows of inflation. Exposing the incoherence

halfness and cowardice of these petty bourgeois organizations — that is one of the main tasks for the French communist party.

It is also necessary to note the mistakes made in the party discussion on the question of the line of behavior of the communist party in times of war. It is not debatable that the formulation that comrade Renault Jean gave on that question is incorrect. According to his thought it would appear that at a moment of declaration of war, the peasantry has to stay home, while the working class has to go to the barracks and take up arms to create a revolution. All the costs, therefore, of the revolution must fall on the working class. The peasantry turns out to be in the privileged position of a class ready to reap the ready fruits of the workers’ victory. Of course, such a perspective more than anything speaks to the instinctive antimilitarism of the Breton peasants, but by no means can it be recommended as a party line. We have never recommended that the masses engage in passive boycotts of war and never put forth a slogan of desertion as our slogan. We always called the masses to take up active struggle against the war, and in that the Bolsheviks differed from the pacifists and antimilitarists like Domel and Nuvenguis: We tell the workers: go into the army take up arms and try to organizationally turn that weapon against the exploiters, turn the imperialist war into a civil war. But at the same time we thought that In the answer of the Secretariat there is also a mistake to Renault Jean’s article the party is being given a no less mistaken point of view than that of Renault Jean. So we aren’t speaking empty words, we will provide one quote that clearly shows the character of that mistake; so, for example, in the response to Renault Jean it says:

“First we need to note that when the bourgeoisie starts a war, that means that it has already succeeded in captivating the masses with that idea and that in the moment of patriotic drunkenness a general strike or uprising are immediately entirely impossible, seeing as it is not possible to create a general strike or revolution when the bourgeoisie

has the majority of the working masses behind it. Experience has shown that armed struggle against the bourgeois government becomes possible only in the moment of first failures, when among the masses at the front and in the rear, skepticism and disappointment takes root, as a result of the losses, the ongoingness of the war and the economic difficulties”.

And next, the response states that specifically because Lenin learned about the impossibility of “decisive opposition” at the start of the war, and he proposed the slogan of transforming imperialist war into civil war.

First, it is incorrect that “when the bourgeoisie starts a war, then that means that it has already succeeded in captivating the masses with that idea”. Your colonial war in Morocco and Syria are specifically evidence of the fact that the French bourgeoisie does not have the working masses behind it in these escapades, which are highly unpopular among the French. Even the disgust created by the latest imperialist war among the working masses, the lessons suffered by them in the last bloody experience give create complete doubt about any future occasion of such a fatalistic statement. Incorrect What is also damaging in connection with this is such a statement by the secretariat as that armed struggle against the bourgeois government at the start of the war is completely impossible”. This is not the perspective of a struggling revolutionary party, that is the philosophy of passivity, which is highly dangerous for a communist party. Third, finally, it is an inaccurate statement depiction of Lenin in the secretariat’s response as a person disillusioned with the possibility of decisive opposition” at the start of the war and for that reason having put forth a slogan of transforming imperialist war into civil war. Anyone who knows the work and perspective of Lenin and his supporters at the start of the war cannot support such incorrect statements. It was specifically the slogan of transforming imperialist war into civil war that was an expression … of the proletariat belief in the possibility of civil war at all stages of imperialist war. Of course, in a majority of cases … the movement came as a result of military failures, but by no means does that mean that we have to turn “pre-war practices” into a sort of tactical dogma. given by the British bourgeoisie, trying at the present time to use harsh means with regard to the working class to conduct

Equally inaccurate in our opinion is the posing of the question about your agitation around the Worker-Peasant Bank in the press speaking about this question. First of all we would not like of ryou to understand us incorrectly, as if we are doubting any attempt by the workers’ party to organizationally and materially fix itself in the frame of the capitalist regime. On the contrary, the initiative by the comrades who put forth the idea of the need to create our own bank, serving the revolutionary needs of the workers’ movement, needs to be thoroughly studied and we hope that in a personal meeting with comrade Maran, we would be able to fully familiarize ourselves with this young experiment and make it a feature of other sections of the Communist International. But at the same time

“We believe, the same organ reads, that all the workers who are thinking of their savings and the interests of their class need to be interested in this new type of enterprise, which will show with its honesty and its good conduction of the work that all riches collected through labor can serve not only those who produce them, but humanity too”. (cursive)

Such, comrades, are the notes that we found necessary to make in this note. We are convinced that because we are talking about partial mistakes, the path will be able to correct them itself under the leadership of the Bolshevist Central Committee.

With a communist greeting