361

[introduction.]

In reply to the Communists’ convincing arguments for unity of action, the official leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties put forward a number of arguments which many socialists still accept.

The Excuses of the Enemies of Unity

p The social-democratic leaders declare that the communist proposals for a united front are only a manoeuvre, a ruse, that the Communists are not really concerned for the interests of the working class but only for their own narrow Party interests and that they want to draw more workers into their ranks.

p This is a gross distortion of the motives that prompt the Communists. In actual fact, in struggling for unity Ihe Communists act in the interesls of the working people, including those who are members or supporters of the Socialist Parties. When the workers act concertedly and unitedly they all gain by it, as a whole and each one individually. This is clear even to the least class-conscious proletarian.

p It is high time the Social-Democrats realised that the policy of unity of action is proposed by the Communists with absolutely 362 honest intentions, with all the sincerity and earnestness natural to the Party of the working class. By pursuing this policy Communists are in no way prompted by fleeting considerations. They are certain that the working people need unity today, when the workingclass movement and all progressive humanity are waging a struggle for peace and democracy, and will need it e\e:i more tomorrow, when the task of building socialism arises in many countries to accomplish which requires the efforts of the whole working ckss. A policy planned for so long a period cannot be degraded to a petty ruse. All the practical activities of the Communist Parties convincingly demonstrate that their proposals for unity of action are not intended to gain a momentary advantage, but are an expression of their permanent political line dictated by concern for the vital interests of all working people.

p Not only Communists recognise that unity has become an imperative necessity. Many non-communist representatives of the working-class movement also think so. For example, Professor Camille Huysmans, former Prime Minister of Belgium and one of the oldest members of the Belgian Socialist Party, stated upon visiting the Soviet Union in 1956: "As an old Socialist and friend of Lenin and his wife Krupskaya for many years I was deeply moved by all this. I knew Lenin’s thoughts and his merits. I considered the rupture that occurred between us in 1917 a mistake. But all this is a thing of the past and I do not want to reproach anybody for it. But I do want to do all I can to restore the unity of the working class in Europe.”

p Particularly valuable are the conclusions of Otto Buchwitz, a well-known veteran of the working-class movement, which he sets out in his book Fifty Years as a Functionary of the German Working-Class Movement. Otto Buchwitz, a former weaver, was a member of the German Social-Democratic Party from 1898 to 1946 and a Reichstag deputy for a number of years. In his book he writes: "Let the young generation learn a lesson from history and be conscious of the fact that in all its actions a strong workingclass movement is responsible not only to its class, but more than that, to its whole people, indeed the whole of mankind. The history of the German working-class movement is proof of this. Had it been united in the struggle against fascism, Hitler could never have come to power. Without Hitler there would have been no war and millions of the world’s young people would not have had to go to their deaths for the sake of criminals afflicted with megalomania, for the sake of imperialists and monopolists.”

p Experience shows that unity of action benefits all the workingclass parties and not the Communists alone. For example, the cooperation of the Italian Socialist Party, numbering some 500,000 members, with the Communist Party not only failed to impair its prestige and influence, but has, on the contrary, enhanced them. 363 At one time this was admitted even by those leaders of the Socialist Party who later yielded to the pressure of the Right-wing elements and rejected co-operation with the Communists. Owing to their unity, the two parties—Communist and Socialist—achieved big successes in the elections. After the war their unity enabled them to secure the adoption of a democratic constitution. It was the Italian working class that benefited most of all by this co-operation.

p Another favourite argument of the enemies of unity is the assertion that the Social-Democrats and Communists have nothing in common. "Socialism and communism have nothing in common. . .” are the exact words of the decision adopted by the Bureau of the Socialist International on April 7, 1956, in answer to the appeal for co-operation made by the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U.

p But the falsity of this thesis is exposed by unbiased witnesses from among the socialists themselves. For example, Professor G.D.H. Cole, prominent theoretician of the British Labour Party, wrote: "I do not dispute that there are immense and deep differences between the doctrines upheld by the Social-Democratic and Labour Parties which form the Socialist International and those upheld by the Communist Parties. . .. But even between these two groups, it is sheer nonsense to say that there is nothing in common.”

p And Professor Cole went on to show that the views of Communists and socialists coincide at least in four points: 1) common to Communists and socialists is the conviction that the most important means of production should be collectively owned and used in the interests of the whole of society, i.e., that capitalism must be replaced by socialism; 2) both the Communists and socialists strive to build a society with a high level of well-being and widest opportunities for education, public health, social security, etc.; 3) both agree that nobody has any right to live by the labour of others, i.e., there must be no exploitation; 4) both are convinced that building a new society is the task of the working class.

p The possibility of co-operation despite ideological differences is also recognised by some functionaries of the French Socialist Party. Albert Gazier, member of the Leading Committee of this Party, wrote in 1955: "The basic differences dividing Bolshevik socialism from the society to which democratic socialism aspires must in no way prevent us from fighting for a rapprochement of the peoples, for peaceful coexistence and international co-operation.”

p All these statements undoubtedly reflect the opinions of very many members of Socialist Parties who are concerned for the fate of the working-class movement.

p The Communist Parties, for their part, put forward a broad platform for co-operation in the well-known Statement of the Moscow Conference of 1960. It envisages joint action to secure an immediate ban on the production, testing and use of nuclear weapons, the establishment of non-nuclear zones, the achievement of general 364 and complete disarmament under international control, assistance to the national-liberation movement, the strengthening of democracy and resistance to the fascist danger, and the raising of the living standards of the working people, etc.

p Is there any socialist worker who is not interested in the realisation of those demands? It follows that Communists and Socialists have much in common and therefore grounds for co-operation.

p The enemies of unity furthermore allege that the Communisls will invariably demand a leading role in each joint action, will dictate and issue orders.

p Experience, however, contradicts this. The practical realisation of the united front in Italy and other countries has shown that the Communists sincerely strive to gain an understanding of the point of view of their allies and that they are partners deserving of trust. Communists in no way seek always to he the initiators and leaders of the joint actions, leaving it to the socialists only to follow them. The Communist Parties are ready and willing to support any reasonable proposal of a social-democratic organisation as long as it meets the interests of the working people. During elections, Communists not infrequently even refuse, in favour of socialists, to nominate their candidates in certain districts in order that they may jointly defeat the representatives of the reactionary parties. And how often it has been proposed that ihe platform for co-operation should be elaborated jointly, that it should be submitted to the membership for approval and that the demands winning the greatest support of the masses shou’d be formulated jointly.

p It is perfectly clear that the socialists have every chance to test the sincerity of the Communists in practice by accepting their proposals for unity of action.

p When the enemies of unity have exhausted their arguments they begin to intimidate rank-and-file socialists by alleging that after the victory of the united front the Communists will make short work of them. They refer to the fate of the Russian Mensheviks. However, one should bear in mind the historical conditions prevailing in Russia at that time: a bitter civil war was raging and most of the Mensheviks formed a bloc with the whiteguards and supported the armed struggle against Soviet power.

p Things look a different course in a different historical situation. In the European People’s Democracies the bulk of the membership of the Socialist Parties joined the ranks of the united parties of the working class and many of their former leaders now hold important state posts.

p Under present-day conditions, which arc more favourable to a victory of the working class, the Communisls, while remaining loyal to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, can and must seek co– operation with Ihe socialists not only in the struggle against the threat of war and in defence of democracy, but also in the joint struggle 365 for socialism. In the countries where historically formed SocialDemocratic, Parties are functioning, the Communists want these parties to participate not only in the working-class conquest of power bill also 1o undertake a share of the efforts in laying the foundations of socialism and 1o form part of the socialist governments.

p In the name of the Communists of the entire world this was authoritalively confirmed by the Moscow Conference of Communist Parlies (November I960). Its Statement says that as in the struggle for immediate aims, "so also in the struggle for the conquest of power and the building of socialism the Communist Parties are in favour of establishing co-operation with the socialist parties".^^1^^"

Thus none of the arguments against communist and socialist unity of action can withstand criticism. There are no insurmountable obstacles to the co-operation of Communisls and socialists. The lack of unity is not due to the fact that they have nothing in common or that Ihe Communists threaten to make short work of the socialists. They could easily come to terms if the reactionary forces of capitalism did not hamper Ihem.

Anti-Communism—Slogan of Reactionary Splitters

p The real motive that acluales many leaders of the Socialist International is their anti-communism. The crux of the matter is not. at all that they are reformists and therefore cannot co-operale with Communists, who are representatives of a revolutionary ideology.

p Reformists who are seriously slriving for even minor reforms lhal may benefit the workers understand that to achieve success requires the joint efforts of all working-class organisations. I lowever, they are usually restrained by Ihe die-hard splilters who have a professional interest in preserving the split in the working-class movement. In modern bourgeois society this has become a very profitable occupation for the most adroit careerists from among the leaders of the reformist trade unions and Social-Democratic, Parlies. The specialists in this business (such as Meany and Brown in the U.S.A., Spaak in Helgium, Guy Mollet in France, Brandt in the Federal German Republic, Pollack in Austria, Tanner in Finland) have adapted the aims of the notorious "cold war" to Ihe conditions of the working-class movement. They always act under the banner of anti-communism, although they know very well that this frayed banner serves—and has repeatedly served—the aims of 1he blackest reaction, which seeks to split the forces of every democratic movement and to destroy it piecemeal. Owing to their hostility to communism and terror in face of the growing influence of socialism in the world, they surrender to the reaclionary, conservative forces. In recent years the representatives of the extreme Right wing have secured the adoption by the social-democratic parties 366 in a number of countries (West Germany, Austria and others) of programmes which completely reject Marxism, the class struggle and traditional socialist watchwords, and in the first place the demand for nationalisation.

p In their hatred of communism they are in no way inferior to the most inveterate reactionaries of the ruling class. Blinded by this hatred they would rather relinquish the defence of the most urgent needs of the working people than co-operate with Communists. When such apostles of anti-communism are faced with the alternative of either co-operating with Communists or allowing reactionaries to come to power, they unhesitatingly choose the latter. "Better fascism than the Popular Front,” such is the position of these people.

p Fortunately, the working-class movement does not have so many out-and-out enemies of unity as to make it impossible to shut them out. But so far they are still in control in the reformist movement because the reactionary bourgeoisie supports them with all its might.

p A comparison of the activities of the splitters with the policies of the ruling circles clearly reveals the mainsprings of their behaviour. The aggressive circles wage a "cold war" against the U.S.S.R., and the leaders of the Socialist International carry it into the working-class movement. The imperialists call for "Atlantic solidarity" to fight communism, and the Right-wing leaders of Social– Democracy appeal for the same thing. The Western colonial powers try to frighten the liberated peoples of Asia and Africa with the " menace of communism”, and the Right-wing socialist leaders implore the young states not to have anything to do with the Socialist countries. Recently the Right-wing socialists have begun to come out with hypocritical condemnations of colonialism and expressions of sympathy for the national-liberation movement. But who can forget that for decades they were a mainstay of the colonial policy of the imperialist powers and in practice still support the machinations of these powers against the peoples who have freed themselves or are in process of doing so?

p In short, the "cold war" advocates in the working-class movement are champions of the interests of the aggressive, imperialist bourgeoisie among the working people. Through them the ruling circles of the imperialist states seek to perpetuate the split in the workingclass movement. The champions of anti-communism actually have no other platform save splitting the working class, and for them “reforms” are in essence only a camouflage aimed at deceiving inexperienced people.

p When this deception comes to light and the masses begin to turn away from the bellicose anti-Communists, the latter resort to circumvention. Most frequently attempts are made to represent Social-Democracy as a kind of "third force”. By juggling with words the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist International assert that in international affairs they take no sides and play the part of arbiter 367 between the East and West. They pretend to adopt the same independent "third way" in questions of home policy, opposing both extreme reaction and the Communists.

p But he who talks about the "third force" deceives either himself or others. As a matter of fact there is noj‘third” way between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between reaction and democracy. The Right-wing Social-Democrats demonstrate it very clearly themselves by actually co-operating with the bourgeois reactionary circles. The best of the adherents of the "third force" idea sooner or later come to recognise the necessity of united action with the Communists. This once more confirms Lenin’s words that in politics it is impossible to avoid a choice between the capitalists and the working class, that "any attempt to form something in between results in the fact that even wholly sincere people slip to one side or the other".^^212^^

p The advocates of the "third force" try to flirt with both the workers and capitalists. They promise the former to fight capitalism and the latter, to defend them from communism. On this basis they demand new “credits” from both. But in granting “credit” to the Right-wing Social-Democrats, the capitalists demand that they should redeem it immediately by intensifying their attacks on Communists. The working class, on the contrary, expects an intensification of the struggle against the arbitrary rule of the capitalist monopolies. But since the political speculators cannot pay both bills at the same time they inevitably become bankrupt. It is no accident that the theory of the "third force" has not met with a broad response among the masses and is now less and less frequently brought to mind.

p Anti-communism is directed not only against the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, but also against all the working people and democrats. True, at first the reactionaries sow illusions that repressions and restrictions will be directed only against Communists and will not affect others. But no sooner do the working people swallow the bait and refrain from resisting the measures aimed at the Communists than the reactionary bourgeoisie proceeds to the next phases of the “operation”, i.e., it extends the campaign of persecution to the Social-Democratic Parties, the trade unions, and even liberal-bourgeois movements and organisations.

p Thus the question as to who hampers working-class unity of action can be answered in only one way: it is hampered by capitalist reaction, the ruling oligarchy of monopoly capital. It is in the interests of capitalist reaction that the advocates of anti-communism and organisers of the "cold war”, who claim to be leaders of the working-class movement, act in the leadership of the working-class organisations. The arguments they put forward against unity do not express, and, indeed, conceal their real motives.

p The splitters in the ranks of the working-class movement enjoy 368 the broad support of the capitalist monopolies and governments. The most active Right-wing Social-Democrats are given profitable posts. For example, as reported in the West European press, in the fifties 410 leading members of the German Social-Democratic Party held 5)29 highly-paid posts in big West German companies and banks. Sixty-five socialist leaders were directors in the concerns of Mannesmann, Klockner, Krupp, Flick, etc. The salaries of these directors reach 100,000–150,000 marks a year. Of the 600 directors of the nationalised enterprises in Austria, 400 are members of the Socialist Party. Twelve of the 25 members of the leadership of this Party are directors and managers of state and private enterprises with salaries of up to 500,000 schillings a year each.

p When the Right-wing socialist leaders become members of governments, monopoly capital sometimes allows them to satisfy .some of the demands of the working people. When the pressure on the part of the working people leaves the big monopolies no other alternative, they make concessions, but in such a way as to strengthen the positions of the socialists against the Communists. At the very first available opportunity they compensate themselves by raising prices or by other means. Capitalist circles use the same tactics by encouraging trade unions that are under the influence of the Right-wing Social-Democrats, and by persecuting Left-wing trade unions.

That is why unity of action of the working class cannot be attained by negotiations and agreements alone. It calls for an active struggle against the machinations of the reactionary bourgeoisie and for the isolation of the latter’s agents in the working-class movement. The struggle for working-class unity of action is an important and inalienable part of the whole struggle of the working people against monopoly capital arid imperialism.