The
Marxist
Volume:
4,
No.
2
April
–
June
1986
B
T
Ranadive
THE
CENTENTARY
OF
MAY
DAY
WILL
BE
CELEBRATED
all
over
the
world
and
tributes
will
be
paid
to
the
memories
of
the
Chicago
martyrs
this
year.
This
heroic
struggle
for
an
8-hour
day
will
be
recalled
and
its
subsequent
history
recapitulated.
It
is,
however,
no
secret
that
the
working
class
did
not
march
as
a
single
army
united
in
ideology
and
practice
soon
after
inter-nationalisation
of
the
May
Day.
It
got
divided
into
two
camps;
its
movement
got
divided
into
two
trends,
the
revolutionary
and
the
reformist.
The
revolutionary
trend
was
represented
by
Marxism,
the
heritage
given
by
Marx
and
Engels
and
later
on
enriched
by
Lenin.
This
trend
determined
the
purpose
and
aims
of
May
Day
when
through
the
Socialist
International
it
decided
to
internationalise
the
observance
of
May
Day.
For
it,
the
Day
became
the
reassertion
and
declaration
of
the
general
line
of
the
revolutionary
movement
of
the
working
class
and
became
an
occasion
to
review
the
class
struggle
waged
in
accordance
with
this
line.
The
other
trend
gradually
reduced
May
Day
observance
to
the
declaration
of
a
few
economic
demands
without
any
call
for
revolution
or
international
unity.
This
was
really
its
general
line
for
the
working
class
movement,
a
line
of
rejection
of
revolution,
of
parliamentary
illusions
and
surrendering
international
unity
before
bourgeois
chauvinism.
The
two
lines
produced
two
different
results.
The
Marxist
–
Leninists
were
able
to
organise
successful
socialist
revolutions
in
one
third
of
the
world;
the
reformists
remained
imprisoned
under
the
rule
of
capital.
The
Chicago
massacre
was
not
the
first
massacre
of
the
workers.
In
fact,
far
bigger
massacres
with
hundreds
of
workers
killed
the
taken
place
decades
before
May
1886.
The
Chicago
gathering
was
not
the
first
gathering
to
raise
the
question
of
reduction
of
working
hours.
In
fact
for
three
decades
the
working
class
of
Great
Britain
had
waged
a
battle
for
reduction
of
working
hours
and
had
succeeded
in
reducing
them
to
the
ten
hours.
And
in
Europe
the
aims
and
objects
of
working
class
struggle
had
gone
far
beyond
achievement
of
partial
demands.
The
working
class
had,
long
before,
raised
the
question
of
political
power
and
organised
insurrection
to
attain
it.
Fifteen
years
before
Chicago,
the
French
workers
were
successful
in
organising
the
first
state
of
the
working
class
and
they
had
to
pay
the
price
for
it
in
hundreds
killed
and
thousands
deported
outside
the
country.
The
revolutionary
content
given
to
May
Day
was
determined
by
the
grand
achievement
preceding
the
American
workers’
struggle
for
an
8-houus
day.
May
Day
is
consecrated
to
the
memory
of
the
Chicago
workers
who
were
killed
in
police
shootings
for
daring
to
demand
an
8-hour
workday.
It
is
consecrated
to
the
memory
of
their
leaders
who
were
executed
by
a
capitalist
court
for
leading
the
workers’
struggle
against
unbridled
brutal
exploitation.
It
was
later
revealed
that
the
leaders
were
convicted
on
the
basis
of
the
perjured
evidence,
that
the
main
prosecution
witness
was
bribed.
Because
of
this,
those
who
were
sentenced
to
life
terms
had
to
be
released
before
time.
One
of
the
leaders
committed
suicide
in
jail.
The
others
walked
to
the
gallows
with
erect
heads.
The
hundred
years
since
the
Hay
Market
massacre
have
witnessed
tremendous
successes
for
the
working
class
movement.
A
class
whose
leaders
were
executed
for
demanding
an
8-hour
workday
under
capitalism
has
now
vanquished
capitalism
over
one
third
of
the
world
and
established
socialism
over
it.
The
red
flag
of
the
working
class
waves
proudly
over
the
socialist
countries
inspiring
confidence
in
the
rest
of
the
working
class
about
its
ultimate
victory.
The
working
class
successes
have
also
given
a
fatal
blow
to
the
old
colonial
system
under
which
countries
like
India
and
other
countries
of
Asia
and
Africa
stood
enchained
by
foreign
rulers.
Thanks
to
these
achievements
of
the
international
working
class
movement
these
countries
are
breathing
the
air
of
freedom.
These
victories
were
achieved
at
the
cost
of
tremendous
sacrifices
on
the
part
of
the
working
class,
its
organisations
and
its
political
parties.
They
were
invariably
led
by
communist
parties
wedded
to
Marxism
–
Leninism.
They
demanded
tremendous
sacrifice
on
the
part
of
individual
workers.
Hundreds
had
to
undergo
the
torture
of
capitalist
prisons.
Thousands
were
shot
dead
by
fascists
in
German
concentration
camps
and
hundreds
again
had
to
face
the
jails
and
the
gallows
of
imperialist
rulers
in
the
national
liberation
struggle;
and
millions
from
the
Soviet
working
class
and
the
people
had
to
sacrifice
their
lives
in
the
anti-fascist
war.
It
is
on
the
basis
of
this
tremendous
flow
of
blood
that
the
world
could
see
the
emergence
of
the
socialist
camp
and
its
growing
strength.
Though
the
Chicago
demonstration
started
on
the
question
of
8-hour
working
day,
the
international
tradition
of
May
Day
went
far
beyond
demands.
It
combined
the
fight
for
partial
demands,
having
revolutionary
significance,
with
the
call
for
ending
the
capitalist
order
and
capture
of
political
power
by
the
working
class
and
a
call
for
international
unity
of
the
working
class.
Those
who
abided
by
these
components
of
May
Day
tradition
were
able
to
organise
successful
revolution.
Those
who
confined
their
practice,
and
the
observance
of
May
Day
to
immediate
demands
only,
landed
themselves
into
reformist
and
revisionist
deviations.
The
reformist
parties
proved
totally
incapable
of
bringing
about
a
social
transformation
and
acted
only
as
some
kind
of
opposition
within
the
framework
of
the
capitalist
system.
The
internationalisation
of
May
Day
and
its
revolutionary
content
were
determined
by
the
predecessors
of
May
Day,
the
great
events
and
battles
waged
by
the
working
class
under
the
influence
of
its
revolutionary
ideology.
By
May
1886,
when
the
Chicago
firing
took
place.
Marx
was
no
longer
alive.
But
his
teachings
had
seized
the
working
class
movement,
which
was
more
and
more
rallying
round
the
banner
of
Marxism.
The
great
landmarks
of
the
working
class
movement
preceding
internationalisation
of
May
Day
were
the
Communist
Manifesto
of
1848,
the
June
insurrection
of
Paris
workers
(1848),
the
founding
of
the
First
International
under
the
guidance
of
the
Marx
and
the
rise
of
the
Paris
commune,
the
first
state
of
the
working
class
of
1871.
The
Manifesto,
which
was
published
during
the
days
of
the
February
revolutions
in
France
in
1848,
was
the
manifesto
of
the
Communist
League,
an
association
of
international
workers.
It
expressed
the
revolutionary
ideology
of
the
working
class,
which
was
to
inspire
it
on
future
occasions.
International
cooperation
of
workers
had
already
begun
The
Manifesto
said
that
of
all
the
classes
that
stand
face
to
face
with
the
bourgeoisie
today,
the
proletariat
alone
is
a
really
revolutionary
class.
All
previous
historical
movements
were
movements
of
minorities
or
in
the
interest
of
minorities;
the
proletarian
movement
is
the
self-conscious,
independent
movement
of
the
immense
majority,
in
the
interest
of
this
immense
majority.
In
depicting
the
most
general
phases
of
the
development
of
the
proletariat,
it
stressed
the
more
or
less
veiled
civil
war
raging
within
the
existing
society,
up
to
the
point
where
that
war
breaks
out
into
open
revolution
and
when
the
violent
overthrow
of
the
bourgeoisie
lays
the
foundation
of
the
state
of
the
proletariat.
The
first
step
in
the
revolution
of
the
working
class
is
to
raise
the
proletariat
to
the
position
of
the
ruling
class,
to
win
the
battle
for
democracy.
The
proletariat
will
use
its
struggle
for
supremacy
to
wrest,
by
degrees,
all
capital
from
the
bourgeoisie,
to
centralise
all
instruments
of
production
in
the
hands
of
the
state,
i.e.,
of
the
proletariat
organised
as
the
ruling
class
and
to
increase
the
total
of
productive
forces
as
rapidly
as
possible.
The
Manifesto
ended
with
the
declaration,
“The
Communists
disdain
to
conceal
their
views
and
aims.
They
openly
declare
that
their
aims
can
be
attained
only
by
the
forcible
overthrow
of
all
existing
social
conditions.
Let
the
ruling
classes
tremble
at
a
communist’s
revolution.
The
proletarians
have
nothing
to
lose
but
their
chains.
They
have
the
world
to
win.
Working
men
of
all
countries,
unite.”
This
is
a
consciousness
of
the
revolutionary
overthrow
of
capital
far
ahead
of
consciousness
for
partial
demands.
It
was
a
period
when
the
working
class
movement
was
just
beginning
to
be
self-conscious.
The
ideology
was
yet
to
reach
and
win
a
large
section,
to
become
a
material
force.
But
the
march
of
history
could
not
wait.
The
June
revolution
of
Paris
workers
(June
1848)
was
an
attempt
at
revolution
of
a
working
class,
which
had
as
yet
no
clear
ideas
of
its
aims
and
objectives.
The
workers
did
not
content
themselves
with
demonstration
and
protests
as
in
Chicago.
They
took
up
arms
and
waged
a
heroic
battle.
Hundreds
were
killed
and
thousands
were
imprisoned.
Writing
about
the
June
revolution
Marx
said,
“The
workers
of
Paris
were
overwhelmed
by
superior
strength,
but
they
were
not
subdued.
They
have
been
defeated
but
their
enemies
are
vanquished.
The
momentary
triumph
of
brute
force
has
been
purchased
with
the
destruction
of
all
the
delusions
and
illusions
of
the
February
revolution,
the
dissolution
of
the
entire
modern
Republican
Party
and
the
division
of
the
French
nation
into
two
nations,
a
nation
of
owners
and
a
nation
of
the
workers.
The
tricolour
republic
now
displays
only
one
colour,
the
colour
of
the
defeated,
and
the
colour
of
blood.
It
has
become
a
red
republic.
“None
of
the
numerous
revolutions
of
the
French
bourgeoisie
since
1789
assailed
the
existing
order
for
they
retained
the
class
rule,
the
slavery
of
the
workers,
the
bourgeois
order,
even
though
the
political
form
of
this
rule
and
this
slavery
changed
frequently.
The
June
uprising
did
assail
this
order.
Woe
to
the
June
uprising.”
Marx,
describing
the
situation
after
the
defeat
of
the
revolution
and
speaking
in
defence
of
the
proletarians
wrote.
“But
the
plebeians
are
tormented
by
hunger,
abused
by
the
press,
forsaken
by
the
doctors,
called
thieves,
incendiaries
and
galley
slaves
by
respectabilities;
their
wives
and
children
are
plunged
into
greater
misery
and
the
beast
of
those
who
have
surived
are
sent
overseas.
It
is
the
right
and
privilege
of
the
democratic
press
to
place
laurels
on
their
clouded
threatening
brow.”
The
founding
of
the
Workingmen’s
International
Association
was
an
outstanding
event.
It
proved
by
its
deeds
to
be
a
world-shaking
event.
The
International
Workingmen’s
Association
later
on
came
to
be
known
as
the
First
International.
It
was
formed
in
September
1864.
The
developments
since
1848
and
the
character
of
the
International
were
to
be
sent
the
inaugural
address
delivered
by
Karl
Marx
at
a
public
meeting.
It
showed
that
the
struggle
for
reduction
of
working
hour
had
already
secured
significant
successes.
If
further
showed
that
the
international
unity
of
the
working
class
and
capture
of
political
power
were
already
coming
to
the
forefront
of
the
working
class
movement.
Of
course
with
the
defeat
of
the
1848
revolution,
the
working
class
movement
had
received
a
number
of
setbacks.
Yet
there
were
compensating
factors.
Marx
observed
in
his
Inaugural
Address.
“And
yet
the
period
passed
since
the
Revolutions
of
1848
has
not
been
without
its
compensating
features
…
After
a
30
years’
struggle
fought
with
most
admirable
perseverance,
the
English
working
class
improving
a
momentous
spilt
between
the
landlords
and
the
money-lords,
succeeded
in
carrying
the
Ten
Hours’
Bill.”
This
struggle
had
a
revolutionary
significance
and
Marx
observed,
“This
struggle
about
the
legal
restriction
of
the
hours
of
labour
raged
more
fiercely
since,
apart
from
frightened
avarice,
it
told
indeed
upon
the
great
contest
between
the
blind
role
of
the
supply
and
demand
laws
which
form
the
political
economy
of
the
middle
class,
and
social
production
controlled
by
social
foresight,
which
forms
the
political
economy
of
the
working
class.
Hence
the
Ten
Hours’
Bill
was
not
only
a
great
practical
success;
it
was
the
victory
of
a
principle;
it
was
for
the
first
time
that
in
broad
daylight
the
political
economy
of
the
middle
class
succumbed
to
the
political
economy
of
the
working
class.”
It
was
a
victory
of
struggle
for
partial
demands
and
it
was
a
political
victory
defeating
the
supply
and
demand
logic
and
replacing
it
with
the
logic
of
social
production.
But
the
Inaugural
Address
went
beyond
partial
struggles
and
expressed
the
political
will
of
the
International
Workers’
Association.
The
Address
says.
“To
conquer
political
power
has,
therefore,
become
a
great
duty
of
the
working
classes.
They
seem
to
have
comprehended
this,
for
in
England,
Germany,
Italy
and
France,
there
have
been
place
simultaneous
revivals
and
simultaneous
efforts
are
being
made
at
political
reorganisation
of
the
workmen’s
party.”
This
is
followed
by
a
call
for
international
unity,
“One
element
of
success
they
possess-numbers;
but
numbers
weigh
only
in
balance,
if
united
by
combination
and
led
by
knowledge.
Past
experience
has
shown
how
disregard
of
the
bond
of
brotherhood
which
ought
to
exist
between
workers
of
different
countries,
and
incite
them
to
stand
firmly
by
each
other
in
all
their
struggle
for
emancipation
will
be
chastised
by
common
discomfiture
of
their
incoherent
efforts.
This
though
prompted
the
workmen
of
different
countries
assembled
on
September
28,
1864
in
public
meeting
at
St.
Martin’s
Hall,
London,
to
found
the
International
Association.”
Stressing
on
the
necessity
to
build
international
unity,
the
inaugural
Address
calls
upon
the
workers
of
all
countries
to
exercise
vigilance
on
the
foreign
policy
of
their
governments
and
to
fight
on
all
occasions,
the
policies
which
set
the
workers
of
one
country
to
fight
against
through
war
and
other
conflicts.
The
Inaugural
Address
says.
“If
the
emancipation
of
the
working
class
requires
their
fraternal
concurrence,
how
are
they
to
fulfil
that
great
mission
with
a
foreign
policy
in
pursuit
of
criminal
designs,
playing
upon
national
prejudices,
and
squandering
in
piratical
wars
the
people’s
blood
and
treasure?”
He
observed
that
events
have
“taught
the
working
classes
the
duty
to
master
themselves
the
mysteries
of
international
politics;
to
watch
the
diplomatic
acts
of
their
respective
governments;
to
counteract
then,
if
necessary,
by
all
means
in
their
power;
when
unable
to
prevent
to
combine
in
simultaneous
denunciations,
and
to
vindicate
the
simple
laws
of
morals
and
justice,
which
ought
to
govern
the
relations
of
private
individuals,
as
the
rules
paramount
of
the
intercourse
of
nations.
“To
fight
for
such
a
foreign
policy
forms
part
of
the
general
struggle
for
the
emancipation
of
the
working
classes.
“Proletariats
of
all
countries,
Unite.”
Between
1864
and
1871
rapid
developments
took
place
in
Europe
and
by
1871
Europe
saw
the
Franco-German
war.
As
a
result
of
the
war,
the
world
saw
the
rise
of
the
first
working
class
state,
the
Paris
Commune.
The
Franco-German
was
a
reactionary
war
launched
against
Germany
by
the
French
Government
allied
with
Tsarist
Russia.
Success
for
the
French
would
have
meant
success
for
European
reaction,
headed
by
Tsarist
Russia
and
a
setback
to
the
working
class
movement.
Though
the
rulers
of
Germany
no
doubt
were
reactionary,
it
was
necessary
to
prevent
the
victory
of
the
French
and
its
ally,
the
Tsar,
against
the
people
of
Europe.
Marx,
therefore,
advised
the
German
working
class
to
fight
the
French
attack,
while
warning
them
that
own
ruling
class
may
use
war
for
its
won
reactionary
class
purposes.
The
German
working
class,
to
prevent
such
a
development
announced
its
opposition
to
the
annexation
of
the
French
provinces
of
Alsace-Lorranie
and
assured
the
working
class
of
France
that
it
would
continue
to
fight
against
the
designs
of
its
ruling
class.
Under
the
inspiration
of
the
International,
Paris
members
published
their
manifesto
to
the
workmen
of
all
nations
on
the
question
of
war.
It
said.
“Once
more,
on
the
pretext
of
the
European
equilibrium,
for
national
honour,
the
peace
of
the
world
is
menaced
by
political
ambitions.
French,
German
and
Spanish
workmen,
let
our
voices
unite
in
one
cry
of
reprobation
against
war.
War
for
a
question
of
preponderance
of
a
dynasty
can,
in
the
eyes
of
workmen,
be
nothing
but
a
criminal
absurdity.
In
answer
to
the
war-like
proclamations
of
those
who
exempt
themselves
from
the
impost
of
blood
and
find
in
public
misfortune
a
source
of
fresh
speculations
we
protest.
We
who
want
peace,
labour
and
liberty.
Brothers
of
Germany,
our
division
would
only
result
in
the
complete
triumph
of
despotism
on
both
sides
of
the
Rhine.
Workmen
of
all
countries,
whatever
may
for
the
present
become
of
our
common
efforts,
we,
know
of
no
frontiers,
we
send
you
a
pledge
of
indissoluble
solidarity,
the
good
wishes
and
salutations
of
the
workmen
of
France.”
The
voice
of
the
French
workmen
received
a
warm
response
from
Germany.
A
mass
meting
held
on
16
July,
said,
“We
are
enemies
of
all
wars,
but
above
all
of
dynastic
wars.
With
deep
sorrow
and
grief,
forced
to
undergo
a
defensive
war
as
an
inevitable
event,
but
we
call,
at
the
same
time,
upon
the
whole
German
working
class
to
render
the
recurrence
of
such
as
immense
social
misfortune
by
vindicating
for
the
people
themselves
the
power
to
decide
on
peace
and
war
and
making
them
masters
of
their
own
destinies.”
In
another
meeting
a
resolution
was
passed
to
the
following
effect:
“In
the
name
of
German
democracy,
and
specially
of
the
workmen
forming
the
Democratic
Socialist
Party
we
declare
the
present
war
to
be
exclusively
dynastic.
“We
are
happy
to
grasp
the
fraternal
hand
stretched
out
to
us
by
the
workmen
of
France.
Mindful
of
the
watchword
of
the
International
Association,
“Proletarians
of
all
countries,
Unite”,
we
shall
never
forget
that
the
workmen
of
all
countries
are
our
friends
and
despots
of
all
countries
our
enemies.”
Such
was
the
spirit
proletarian
internationalism
inspiring
the
working
class
under
the
guidance
of
the
First
International.
PARIS
COMMUNE
Development
arising
out
of
the
war
led
to
the
insurrection
of
Paris
workers
and
the
mergence
of
the
first
working
class
state.
Marx
wrote
about
the
Commune,
“The
Commune
was
thus
a
true
representative
of
all
the
healthy
elements
of
French
society,
and
therefore,
a
truly
national
government,
it
was
at
the
same
time,
as
a
workmen’s
government,
the
bold
champion
of
the
emancipation
of
labour,
emphatically
international.
Within
sight
of
the
Prussian
army
that
had
annexed
Germany,
two
French
provinces,
the
Commune
annexed
to
France,
the
working
people
all
over
the
world.
The
Commune
admitted
all
foreigners
to
the
honour
of
dying
for
an
immortal
cause.
The
Commune
made
a
German
workman
its
Minister
of
Labour.”
The
rise
of
the
first
working
class
state
in
the
midst
of
capitalist
Europe,
the
revolutionary
measures
it
took
to
help
forward
the
emancipation
of
the
working
class,
the
blow
it
gave
to
the
bureaucratic
apparatus
of
the
capitalist
states
and
its
measures
like
electing
public
officials
through
common
vote
sent
a
wave
of
panic
and
fear
in
the
capitalist
class
of
all
countries
and
every
effort
was
made
to
defeat
this
heroic
battle
of
the
Parisian
workers.
The
inevitable
result
of
the
combination
of
all
reactionary
forces
was
the
defeat
of
the
Commune
followed
by
massacre.
Engels
wrote.
“It
was
only
after
eight
days
‘fighting
when
the
last
defenders
of
the
Commune
succumbed
and
then
the
massacre
of
defenceless
men,
women
and
children
which
had
been
raging
all
through
the
week
on
an
increasing
scale,
reached
its
zenith.
The
breach-loaders
could
no
longer
kill
fast
enough;
the
vanquished
were
shot
down
in
hundreds.
The
Wall
of
the
federals
where
the
final
mass
murder
was
consummated
it
still
standing
today,
a
mute
but
eloquent
testimony
to
the
frenzy
of
which
the
ruling
class
is
capable
as
soon
as
the
working
class
dares
to
stand
up
for
its
rights.
When
slaughter
of
them
all
proved
to
be
impossible,
came
the
mass
arrests,
the
shooting
of
victims
arbitrarily
selected
from
the
prisoners’
ranks
removal
of
the
rest
to
the
great
camps
where
they
waited
trial
by
court-martials.”
Never
before
had
the
working
class
movement
seen
such
a
massacre.
Here
again,
there
is
a
massacre
following
civil
war,
a
class
war,
which
revealed
the
blood
–
thirsty
vengeance
of
the
entire
capitalist
class.
Events
of
1871
shoed
how
the
workers
were
fulfilling
their
historic
task
of
creating
a
new
state
directly
responsible
to
the
people,
a
state
essentially
different,
from
the
capitalist
state
to
secure
the
emancipation
of
the
entire
society
from
exploitation.
These
were
the
great
predecessors
of
the
May
Day
movement
and
they
invested
May
Day
observance
with
the
rich
revolutionary
content,
which
went
far
beyond
the
demand
for
an
8-hour
day
and
other
partial
demands.
It
is
this
tradition
that
laid
down
that
May
Day
observance
should
not
only
put
forward
certain
important
partial
demands
but
also
announce
the
determination
of
working
class
to
end
the
capitalist
system
through
a
revolution
and
product
the
international
unity
of
the
working
class
by
opposing
all
instruments
of
defeating
its
unity.
The
Socialist
International,
later
on
known
as
the
Second
International,
founded
in
1889,
took
the
initiative
to
internationalise
May
Day
giving
it
a
revolutionary
class
content.
This
was
no
accident
because
the
Socialist
International
represented
the
political
parties
of
the
European
working
class
who
had
grown
and
were
nurtured
in
the
spirit
of
revolutionary
Marxism.
They
had
grown
under
the
influence
of
the
1848
revolution
and
the
great
happenings
of
the
Paris
Commune.
And
besides,
in
the
foundation
of
the
international,
Fredrick
Engels
played
a
great
role
and
was
the
guiding
spirit
in
directing
its
policies
and
outlook
in
the
beginning.
Therefore,
the
May
Day
call
of
the
Socialist
International
uniting
the
8-hour
day
struggle
of
Chicago
workers
with
the
revolutionary
traditions
of
the
European
workers
became
a
tremendous
international
success
setting
the
movement
on
correct
revolutionary
lines.
Under
its
guidance,
May
Day
became
a
day
of
assertion
of
the
three
great
components
of
the
current
revolutionary
struggle
of
the
working
class.
They
consisted
of
raising
certain
partial
demands
of
the
workers
having
revolutionary
significance;
raising
the
demands
for
capture
of
political
power
through
revolution;
and
protection
of
international
unity
at
all
costs
by
opposing
militarism
and
wars.
It
is
no
accident
that
only
organisations
and
parties
that
carried
forward
this
heritage
of
the
international
revolutionary
movement
and
never
forgot
their
revolutionary
task
while
determinedly
carrying
forward
their
battles
for
partial
demands
succeeded
in
organising
socialist
revolutions.
Such
were
the
Marxist-
Leninist
parties
who
never
forgot
the
three
components
and
rejected
all
class
collaborationist
policies.
There
is
no
instance
of
a
non-Marxist
party
organising
any
revolution
or
bringing
about
any
social
transformation.
The
fact
is
that
May
Day
which
was
originally
to
rally
support
for
8-hours’
work,
was
now
invested
with
the
content
of
the
general
line
of
the
revolutionary
working
class
movement.
It
was
therefore,
inevitable
that
those
who
stuck
to
the
line
in
conducting
the
struggle
of
the
working
class
should
be
successful
in
organising
socialist
revolution
while
those
who
departed
from
the
line
should
land
themselves
into
the
morass
of
reformism.
The
Marxist-Leninist
parties
remained
at
the
head
of
the
socialist
revolution
transforming
one
third
of
the
world;
reformist
socialist
democratic
parties
became
prisoners
of
the
capitalist
order
unable
to
break
through
the
prison
with
their
illusions
about
peaceful
and
parliamentary
path
to
socialism.
Commenting
on
the
revolutionary
significance
of
May
Day
Lenin
said
in
1900,
“the
demand
for
an
8-hour
day,
however,
is
the
demand
of
the
whole
proletariat
presented
not
to
individual
employers,
but
to
the
state
authorities
as
the
representative
of
the
entire
present
day
social
and
political
system,
to
the
capitalist
class
as
a
whole,
the
owners
of
all
the
means
of
production.
The
demand
of
an
8-hour
day
has
assumed
a
special
significance.
It
is
a
declaration
of
solidarity
with
the
international
socialist
movement.
We
need
to
make
the
workers
understand
this
so
that
they
do
not
reduce
railway
tickets
or
the
dismissal
of
a
watchman.
“Throughout
the
year,
the
workers,
first
in
one
place
and
then
another
continuously
present
a
variety
of
partial
demands
to
their
employees
and
fight
for
their
achievement.
In
assisting
the
workers
in
this
struggle
socialists
must
always
explain
its
connection
with
the
proletarian
struggle
for
its
emancipation
in
all
countries.
And
the
first
of
May
must
be
the
day
on
which
the
workers
solemnly
declare
that
they
realise
the
connection
and
resolutely
join
in
the
struggle.”
Combining
the
urgent
economic
demands
having
revolutionary
significance
with
the
general
expression
of
international
solidarity
and
desire
for
socialism
was
not
enough.
To
be
able
to
reach
the
goal
of
socialism,
it
was
necessary
that
the
working
class
of
each
country
address
itself
to
the
concrete
problem
of
revolution
facing
it.
Lenin
said
in
1902
in
his
letter
to
the
Nothern
League.
“It
should
have
been
added
that
in
our
country
May
Day
also
becomes
a
demonstration
against
the
autocracy,
a
demand
for
political
liberty.
Pointing
to
the
international
significance
of
the
holiday
is
not
enough.
It
must
also
be
linked
with
the
struggle
for
the
most
vital
national
political
demands.”
In
Lenin’s
days,
the
reformist
tried
to
undermine
the
significance
of
the
revolutionary
character
of
May
Day
and
decided
to
bring
it
in
line
with
their
reformist
policies.
This
was
the
phenomenon
in
all
European
socialist
democratic
parties
except
the
Russian
and
some
other
parties.
Lenin
noted
this
development
in
the
German
party
in
the
year
1905.
In
his
article,
Jena
Congress
of
German
Socialist
Democratic
Workers
Party,
he
wrote,
“Another
question
that
came
up
for
discussion
in
Jena,
prior
to
the
question
of
political
strike
is
also
highly
instructive
for
Russia.
This
was
the
question
of
May
Day
celebration
or
to
be
more
exact
(to
take
the
gist
of
the
matter
and
not
the
item
that
gave
rise
to
the
discussion),
the
question
or
relationship
of
the
trade
union
movement
with
the
Social
Democratic
Party.
“Proletary
has
spoken
times
about
the
profound
impression
made
on
German
Socialist
Democrats
and
not
only
on
them
alone,
by
the
Cologne
Trade
Union
Congress.
It
became
more
than
evident
at
this
Congress
that
even
in
Germany,
where
the
tradition
of
Marxism
and
its
influence
are
strongest,
anti-socialist
tendencies
towards
”pure
trade
unionism”
of
the
British
i.e.,
absolutely
bourgeois
type,
are
developing
in
the
trade
unions,
mark
you,
social
democratic
trade
unions.
That
is
why
from
the
question
of
May
Day
demonstration
in
its
literal
sense,
there
inevitably
arose
at
the
Jena
Congress
the
question
of
trade
unionism
and
social
democracy,
the
question
of
economism
to
speak
in
the
terms
of
the
trends
within
the
Russian
Socialist
Democratic
movement.”
This
had
gone
so
far
that,
for
instance,
Bringmanm,
the
representative
of
the
Carpenters’
Union
had
uttered
and
published
sentiments
like
the
following:
“A
strike
on
May
Day
is
like
a
foreign
body
in
the
human
body.
In
the
given
circumstances
the
trade
unions
are
the
sole
means
for
symptoms
of
the
disease,
as
Fischer
aptly
termed
them,
are
supplemented
by
a
number
of
other.
In
Germany
as
in
Russia
and
indeed
everywhere,
a
narrow
trade
unionism
or
economism
is
linking
up
with
opportunism
(revisionism).
Within
a
few
years
this
trend
began
to
dominate
the
social
democratic
parties
and
day
by
day
basic
tenets
of
Marxism
were
directly
or
indirectly
given
up
leading
to
repudiation
of
the
entire
revolutionary
line
of
the
working
class
movement.
Nowhere
was
the
collapse
so
complete
and
scandalous
as
on
the
question
of
international
unity
of
the
working
class.
Day
by
day,
the
social
democratic
parties,
in
matters
of
foreign
policy,
began
to
adopt
the
same
stand
as
that
of
their
government
when
capitalism
had
already
entered
the
stage
of
imperialism
and
the
policy
of
the
advanced
capitalist
countries
was
nothing
but
a
policy
of
colonial
conquest
and
domination.
ON
THE
QUESTION
OF
WAR
The
acid
test
of
internationalism
came
on
the
question
of
the
developing
prospect
of
war
between
capitalist
countries.
Since
the
days
of
the
First
International,
the
working
class
movement
was
taught
to
take
a
class
position
towards
all
wars,
opposing
those
which
were
reactionary
and
whose
aim
was
domination
of
other
nations
and
supporting
wars
of
national
liberation
and
wars
which
helped
forward
the
progress
of
social
advance.
The
Marxist
position
on
war
was
not
a
pacifist
position
but
was
determined
by
the
interests
of
the
advance
of
socialism
and
emancipation
pf
mankind
from
exploitation.
It,
therefore,
sometimes
entailed
support
of
one
party
in
the
war
while
opposing
its
opponent.
It
some-times
demanded
that
every
effort
be
made
to
prevent
a
war
where
consequences
would
definitely
harm
social
development
and
working
class
struggle
for
establishing
a
socialist
system.
On
all
occasions,
the
question
of
war
and
peace
was
to
be
decided
on
the
basis
of
which
class
is
fighting
whom,
which
combination
is
helpful
to
the
revolutionary
working
class
to
achieve
its
objectives.
As
has
been
pointed
out
earlier,
during
the
Franco-German
war
in
1870,
Marx
and
Engels
called
upon
the
German
working
class
to
defend
their
country
against
French
attack
while
they
called
upon
the
French
workers
to
oppose
the
war
launched
by
their
government.
The
reason
for
this
differentiation
was
that
France
was
in
alliance
with
Tsarist
Russia
and
the
victory
of
the
two
would
have
mean
the
victory
of
the
reactionary
forces
in
Europe,
German
defeat
would
have
meant
further
obstacles
to
the
modern
development
of
Germany
and
many
other
countries
thereby
hampering
the
struggle
for
socialism.
At
the
same
time
the
German
and
French
workers
were
called
upon
to
fraternise
with
each
other
and
the
German
workers
openly
declared
that
they
would
not
allow
annexation
of
Alsace
and
Lorraine
to
Germany.
Marx
showed
that
internationalism
of
the
working
class
cannot
be
effective
unless
it
has
a
correct
and
class
attitude
towards
conflicts
between
nations.
At
the
end
of
the
1880s
and
the
beginning
of
1890s,
the
question
of
war
again
appeared
before
the
working
class
movement
of
Europe.
Marx
and
Engels
had
prophesised
in
1870-71
that
annexation
of
Alsace
and
Lorraine
by
the
German
state
would
lead
to
a
new
war,
a
war
that
would
inevitably
harm
Europe.
Engels
saw
the
approaching
war
and
followed
the
developments
with
deep
concern.
He
urged
the
representatives
of
the
Second
International,
and
especially
the
leaders
of
the
German
and
French
labour
movement
to
deal
with
the
dangerous
situation
by
mutual
exchange
of
ideas.
He
called
up
on
them
to
develop
a
working
class
alternative
to
the
warmongering
policy
of
the
ruling
classes.
He
and
Marx
had
in
1848
openly
called
for
a
revolutionary
people’s
war
against
Tsarist
Russia
as
the
main
source
of
European
reaction.
In
the
1850s
and
1860s
they
firmly
held
to
this
concept.
Now,
however,
Engels
was
of
the
firm
opinion
that
a
world
war
would
indeed
shake
the
power
of
the
ruling
classes
but
would
also
retard
the
forward
march
of
the
workers’
movement
by
stirring
up
feelings
of
nationalism
and
chauvinism.
Engels
drew
the
conclusion
that
the
socialist
movement
and
the
people
in
general
urgently
needed
peace
for
their
further
development;
under
peaceful
conditions
the
organised
working
class
could
best
prepare
itself
for
the
struggle
to
conquer
political
power.
The
struggle
for
peace
thus
become
a
permanent
and
inseparable
part
of
their
struggle
for
socialism.
To
fight
against
the
war
danger
Engels
wrote
an
alternative
programme
for
foreign
policy.
This
was
supplemented
by
an
alternative
programme
for
domestic
policies
at
he
centre
of
which
stood
the
destruction
of
the
Prussian
and
German
military
state.
It
concentrated
on
bringing
about
the
end
of
the
dangerous
expansionist
initiative
by
Germany
for
universal
disarmament,
establishment
of
peaceful
relations
with
the
neighbouring
peoples
on
the
basis
of
mutual
equality,
especially
the
re-establishment
of
Poland
and
guarding
of
the
right
of
self-determination
to
the
people
of
Alsace
and
Lorraine;
as
well
as
the
right
of
self-determination
of
the
German
people
in
all
questions
of
foreign
policy;
especially
with
respect
to
war
and
peace.
(See;
Frederick
Engels:
A
Biography.
PPH,
New
Delhi).
This
was
perhaps
for
the
first
time
that
a
comprehensive
programme
for
disarmament
was
proposed
by
the
working
class.
But
putting
for
disarmament
and
expression
of
opposition
to
war
did
not
stop
the
ruling
class
from
going
further
ahead
with
arms
expansion.
Engels,
therefore,
took
the
situation
into
consideration
and
gave
advice
on
what
the
working
class
should
do
if
war
broke
out.
The
main
consideration
on
the
basis
of
which
Engels
defined
the
attitude
of
the
French
and
German
working
class
to
a
European
war
was
the
overall
interest
of
the
international
workers’
movement.
It
was
true
he
wrote,
that
the
French
republic
represented
the
revolution
as
against
official
Germany
that
is
to
say
only
the
bourgeois
revolution,
but
in
any
event
the
revolution;
but
behind
official
Germany
stood
socialist
Germany,
the
party
to
which
the
future,
the
near
future
belonged.
“As
soon
as
the
party
comes
to
power,
it
cannot
exercise
it
or
retain
it
without
making
amends
for
the
injuries
which
its
predecessors
in
office
committed
against
other
nations.
It
will
prepare
the
re-establishment
of
Poland,
so
meanly
betrayed
today
by
the
French
bourgeoisie,
it
will
make
it
possible
for
North
Schlesvig
and
Alsace-Loraine
to
decide
freely
on
their
political
future.
All
these
questions
thus
can
be
easily
settled
in
the
near
future
only
on
condition
that
Germany
be
left
to
itself.”
On
the
other
hand
the
ruling
classes
in
Germany
as
well
as
in
France
and
Russia,
had
a
completely
opposite
aim
in
a
possible
war,
namely
the
oppression
of
the
only
party,
which
is
“the
enemy
for
all
three
of
them,
the
revolutionary
workers’
party.
For
that
reason
the
German
Socialists
in
the
interests
of
the
European
revolution
were
bound
to
defend
all
conquered
positions,
to
capitulate
as
little
before
the
external
enemy
as
before
the
internal
enemy.
Since
official
Germany
through
its
home
policy
unworthy
of
a
great
nation,
had
drawn
the
contempt
of
all
bourgeois
liberal
countries
upon
itself
and
through
its
foreign
policy
the
distrust
and
the
hatred
of
the
neighbouring
nations.
Engels
was
of
the
opinion
that
in
a
possible
war
at
the
beginning
of
the
1890s
German
socialism
would
unquestionably
personify
the
proletarian
revolution
as
against
French-Russian
attack.
In
that
case,
the
German
workers’
party
would
have
to
force
through
the
application
of
strict
revolutionary
rules.
Engels
hoped
that
the
German
proletariat
of
the
day
were
not
unworthy
of
the
French
sans
culottes
of
a
hundred
years
ago.
This
was
a
time
when
Marxism
dominated
the
thought
of
the
social
democratic
parties
and,
therefore,
there
was
not
much
difficulty
in
securing
common
understanding
on
the
question
of
war.
Engels
felt
very
happy
when
the
French
Party
completely
agreed
with
his
line
of
thinking.
Lafargue
the
French
leader
wrote,
“Our
friends
have
not
the
least
reason
to
object
to
it;
they
will
even
find
that
it
has
arrived
at
precisely
the
right
moment,
and
that
it
is
the
clearest
and
the
most
intelligent
presentation
of
the
current
situation
and
that
it
is
most
important
at
the
present
moment
to
speak
the
truth.”
In
the
earlier
years
of
the
Socialist
International,
opposition
to
war
was
reiterated.
When
the
Paris
congress
met,
the
danger
of
war
was
growing
in
Europe.
The
Paris
congress,
therefore,
adopted
a
resolution
for
disbanding
standing
armies,
calling
for
the
arming
of
the
entire
people.
This
resolution
exposed
the
direct
connection
between
wars
and
capitalism
and
underlined
that
the
worldwide
triumph
of
socialism
was
the
best
guarantee
that
there
would
be
no
war.
At
its
next
Congress
in
Brussels
in
1890,
the
Socialist
International
called
upon
the
workers
to
observe
May
First
to
demand
the
8-hour
day
and
to
ensure
peace
among
the
nations.
The
call
of
the
Second
International
to
raise
opposition
to
war
and
demand
peace
among
nations
on
May
Day
was
on
the
tradition
of
internationalism
set
by
the
First
International.
The
Socialist
International
formed
under
the
guidance
of
Engels
infused
May
Day
observance
with
the
tradition
of
opposition
to
war
and
upholding
the
international
unity
of
the
working
class.
STRUGGLE
AGAINST
REFORMISM
The
tradition
continued
to
inspire
May
Day
observance
year
after
year.
It
was
a
period
when
proletarian
parties
inspired
by
Marxism
were
spreading
the
Europe,
spreading
the
message
of
revolution
capture
of
power
and
opposition
to
the
war
plans
of
the
militarists.
The
period
saw
the
rise
and
spread
of
Marxism
to
Russia
and
the
rise
of
the
Bolshevik
party
led
by
Lenin,
the
proletarian
party
of
a
new
type
suited
to
discharge
the
task
of
organising
the
imminent
proletarian
socialist
revolution.
But
as
Lenin
pointed
out,
the
Socialist
International
and
its
parties
grew
in
breadth,
at
the
cost
of
temporary
strengthening
of
opportunism.
The
beginning
of
this
opportunism
was
seen
at
the
Jena
Congress
of
the
German
party
and
noted
by
Lenin.
But
the
disease
began
to
affect
all
social
democratic
parties
leading
to
an
intense
inner-party
struggle
between
the
revolutionary
and
opportunist
lines.
The
revolutionary
line
triumphed
in
Russia
and
the
Bolshevik
party
was
able
to
successfully
lead
the
revolutionary
struggle
for
socialism.
The
opportunist
trend
arose
out
of
the
period
of
capitalist
expansion,
its
development
into
imperialism.
It
created
illusions
about
peaceful
development
to
socialism,
redundancy
of
class
struggle.
The
labour
aristocracy,
which
had
developed
in
some
of
the
European
countries
nourished
by
colonial
loot,
nurtured
this
line
of
opportunism.
Imperialist
pressure
and
the
rise
of
nationalist
tendencies
in
the
social
democratic
parties
obstructed
efforts
to
strengthen
international
solidarity
and
expand
the
cooperation
of
the
proletariat
of
different
countries.
Lenin
noted
that
“Throughout
the
existence
of
the
Second
International
a
struggle
was
raised
in
all
the
social
democratic
parties,
between
the
revolutionary
and
opportunist
wings.”
Early
20th
century
development
showed
that
the
revolutionary
wings
was
the
real
force
behind
many
decisions
of
the
International.
Do
what
they
could;
the
opportunists
could
not
succeed
in
having
their
resolutions
adopted
at
socialist
conferences
and
International
Congresses.
All
they
could
do
was
to
obstruct
and
sabotage
the
implementation
of
these
decisions.
As
a
result
most
of
the
social
democratic
parties
did
not
follow
up
the
resolutions
adopted
in
the
conferences
especially
those
up
the
struggle
against
war.
August
1914
saw
the
outbreak
of
the
first
imperialist
war.
Writing
in
the
autumn
of
1914,
Lenin
characterised
the
war
as
follows:
“Seizure
of
territory
and
subjugation
of
other
nations,
the
running
of
competing
nations
and
plunder
of
their
wealth,
distracting
the
attention
of
the
working
masses
from
the
internal
political
crisis
in
Russia,
Germany,
Britain
and
other
countries,
disunity
and
nationalist
stultification
of
workers,
and
the
extermination
of
their
vanguard
so
as
to
weaken
the
revolutionary
movement
of
the
proletariat—
these
comprise
the
sole
actual
content,
importance
and
significance
of
the
present
war.”
At
this
critical
moment
the
right
wing
social
democrats
and
the
centrists
openly
betrayed
the
interests
of
the
working
class
and
the
revolution.
Instead
of
fighting
for
the
overthrow
of
capitalism,
for
converting
the
imperialist
war
into
civil
war,
as
Lenin
advised,
the
opportunists
followed
the
bourgeoisie
of
their
countries
and
declared
that
the
predatory
imperialist
war
waged
by
their
governments
was
defensive
in
character,
a
war
to
save
civilisation
and
the
gains
of
the
working
class.
They
called
upon
the
workers
to
forge
national
unity,
that
is,
to
untie
with
their
predatory
bourgeoisie
to
massacre
the
working
class
of
other
countries.
Some
activists
of
the
Second
International
now
crowned
their
opportunism
with
joining
the
imperialist
governments
and
propagating
a
policy
of
civic
peace,
that
is
class
collaboration.
It
helped
the
warring
governments
to
repress
the
anti-war
activities
of
the
working
class.
Most
social
democratic
members
of
parliament
approved
war
appropriations.
This
was
complete
repudiation
of
internationalism,
the
international
tradition
of
May
Day,
of
opposition
to
war
and
protection
of
the
international
unity
of
the
working
class.
The
left
wing,
the
revolutionary
wing
in
the
social
democratic
parties
in
all
countries
opposed
this
betrayal.
They
voiced
their
protest
against
the
war.
They
were
sent
to
jail
by
the
imperialist
rulers.
But
the
revolutionary
wing
was
in
a
minority
and
could
not
prevent
the
betrayal
notwithstanding
it
relentless
fight
against
opportunism
and
repudiation
of
internationalism.
Only
in
Russia,
under
the
leadership
of
Lenin
could
the
Bolshevik
party
succeed
in
carrying
out
its
revolutionary
task
in
the
fight
against
war
and
the
struggle
for
revolution.
In
Russia,
the
struggle
against
war
started
in
right
earnest
from
the
beginning.
Barricades
were
erected
in
St.
Petersburg
on
July
18,
the
day
the
war
was
declared.
On
that
day
27,000
people
went
on
strike
in
the
capital.
Strikes
broke
out
in
Moscow
also.
Mass
anti-war
demonstrations
took
place
in
a
number
of
cities.
Activities
by
workers,
peasants
and
draftees
spread
to
several
industrial
centres.
In
the
two
weeks
following
the
declaration
of
war
five
hundred
and
five
draftees
and
106
officials
were
wounded
or
killed
in
27
gurbernias.
Bolshevik
members
of
the
DUMA
uncompromisingly
opposed
the
war.
They
sponsored
an
anti-war
declaration
and
were
the
first
to
refuse
to
vote
to
approve
military
appropriations.
They
were
tried
and
exiled.
Such
was
the
contrast
between
the
two
lines,
the
one
which
led
to
the
victory
of
the
revolution
and
other
which
supported
the
imperialist
war
and
led
to
the
betrayal
of
the
revolution.
No
wonder
a
number
of
post-war
revolutions
in
European
countries
including
Germany
were
betrayed
by
the
reformists
and
were
suppressed
by
the
ruling
party.
The
revolutionary
achievements
of
the
period
could
not
have
been
possible
without
a
relentless
struggle
against
opportunism
and
the
class
collaborationist
line.
The
defence
of
internationalism
could
not
have
been
possible
without
an
inner
struggle
against
revisionism.
The
success
of
the
Russian
revolution
sharpened
the
struggle
within
the
reformist
and
revolutionary
lines
in
the
labour
movement
between
the
internationalist
and
nationalist
chauvinist
lines
and
led
to
an
open
split.
The
formation
of
the
Communist
International
under
the
guidance
of
Lenin
and
the
formation
of
Communist
Parties
underlined
that
the
two
trends
could
no
longer
remain
in
one
organisation.
They
must
collide
with
each
other
on
important
an
issue
of
the
revolutionary
movement
was
to
march
forward.
The
Communist
International
and
the
Communist
Parties
now
represented
the
revolutionary
and
international
traditions
of
May
Day
of
the
earlier
years
and
they
remained
true
to
them
on
all
critical
occasions.
The
new
international
had
no
place
for
those
who
were
not
specifically
committed
to
fight
the
domination
of
their
country
over
the
colonies.
There
could
not
be
any
internationalism
if
it
did
not
include
the
fight
against
colonial
domination.
Lenin
said
“The
social
revolution
can
come
only
in
the
form
of
an
epoch
in
which
are
combined
civil
war
by
the
proletariat
in
the
advanced
countries
and
a
whole
series
of
democratic
and
revolutionary
movements,
including
the
national
revolutionary
movement
in
the
underdeveloped,
backward
and
oppressed
nations.”
This
completely
demarcated
the
Communists
from
the
reformists.
Emphasising
the
same
point
Lenin
said
at
the
Second
Congress
of
the
Second
International
“The
revolutionary
movement
in
the
advanced
countries
would
actually
be
sheer
fraud
of
in
their
struggle
against
capital
the
workers
of
Europe
and
America
were
not
closely
and
completely
united
with
the
hundreds
of
hundreds
of
millions
of
colonial
slaves
who
are
oppressed
by
capital.”
The
Communist
International
and
the
Communist
parties
became
the
custodian
of
the
international
revolutionary
traditions
and
had
to
carry
forward
the
heritage
in
opposition
to
the
social
democratic
and
reformist
parties
who
continued
to
retain
their
mass
base
after
the
defeat
of
post-war
revolution
in
Europe.
It
was
a
hard
struggle
to
maintain
the
movement
on
revolutionary
traditions
and
at
the
same
time
make
every
effort
to
win
over
larger
and
larger
sections
of
the
working
class
who
were
deeply
under
the
reformist
influence.
The
working
class
had
to
pay
a
heavy
price
for
the
influence
of
the
reformist
ideology
on
its
movement.
The
reformists
weakened
and
disrupted
the
fight
against
fascism
refusing
to
form
a
joint
front
with
the
communists
in
the
struggle
against
fascism.
The
Communist
party
making
every
effort
to
unite
the
entire
working
class
in
the
struggle
against
fascism
was
met
with
resistance
by
the
reformists.
Only
in
a
few
countries
did
the
reformists
opt
for
a
wide
popular
front
to
stem
the
tide
of
fascist
counter-revolution.
Fascist
counter-revolution
was
facilitated
in
Germany
and
some
other
countries
because
of
the
reformist
disruption.
Above
all,
in
foreign
policy
outlook
the
reformists
again
repudiated
all
international
responsibilities.
They
refused
to
recognise
the
validity
of
the
socialist
revolution
in
Russia
to
consider
it
as
the
biggest
gain
of
the
working
class
movement
and
were
not
prepared
to
fight
the
war
conspiracies
of
their
governments
against
the
socialist
state.
On
the
other
hand
they
maligned
the
working
class
state
as
based
on
denial
of
democracy
and
after
the
rise
of
the
fascist
state
in
Germany,
they
began
to
describe
both
as
totalitarian
states,
wiping
out
the
difference
between
the
revolutionary
class
state
of
the
working
class
and
the
counter-revolutionary
class
state
of
the
fascist
bourgeoisie.
In
the
year
between
the
two
wars
they
generally
helped
the
policy
of
their
governments,
the
Anglo-French
governments,
to
direct
the
German
offensive
against
the
USSR
and
refused
to
support
the
Soviet
call
for
peace
and
collective
security.
This
total
repudiation
of
internationalism
landed
their
countries
in
disaster
and
defeat
at
the
hands
of
Hitler.
Only
when
after
the
debacle,
their
governments
were
forced
to
side
with
the
Soviet
Union
did
these
worthies
of
reformism
change
their
line
and
agree
to
stand
together
with
the
socialist
state
in
the
common
struggle
against
Hitler.
Once
again,
the
peoples
of
the
world
and
the
working
class
had
to
pay
an
immense
price
for
this
treacherous
class
collaboration.
It
was
mainly
the
heroism
of
the
Soviet
working
class,
of
the
Soviet
people
and
their
sacrifices
that
changed
the
fate
of
the
war
and
enabled
the
enslaved
nations
of
Europe
to
regain
their
freedom.
In
this
period
Communist
parties
in
their
countries
played
a
heroic
role
fighting
fascism,
struggling
against
war
and
protecting
the
revolutionary
tradition
of
May
Day.
It
was
their
heroic
anti-fascist
struggle,
their
stubborn
internationalism
that
enabled
a
number
of
East
European
countries
to
overthrow
the
old
order
and
establish
socialism
after
the
defeat
of
Hitler’s
forces
by
the
Red
Army.
The
Communist
parties
continued
to
carry
forward
the
revolutionary
tradition
after
the
anti-fascist
victory
fighting
the
US
plans
of
world
domination
and
coming
forward
as
partisans
of
the
socialist
camp
which
now
extends
over
one
third
of
the
world
with
the
victory
of
great
Chinese
revolution.
The
1957
meeting
of
the
Communist
parties
declared
US
imperialism
to
be
the
main
enemy
of
all
people
and
the
leader
of
world
reaction.
But
the
reformist
wing
continued
its
old
mistaken
outlook
of
aligning
behind
its
government
and
refusing
to
recognise
the
socialist
camp
as
the
mighty
victory
of
the
world
working
class.
Year
by
year
it
fell
into
the
imperialist
grasp
supporting
the
manoeuvres
of
its
government
against
the
socialist
camp
and
refusing
to
fight
against
the
nuclear
blackmail
by
US
imperialists.
Once
again
proletarian
internationalism
was
repudiated
in
the
interest
of
class
collaboration.
The
Communist
movement
had
to
carry
forward
the
task
of
defending
international
unity,
supporting
the
national
liberation
struggle
and
fighting
imperialist
machinations
against
the
socialist
camp.
This
it
did
valiantly
and
in
the
principled
manner
for
a
number
of
years.
But
unfortunately,
certain
segments
of
the
Communist
movement
began
to
be
affected
by
revisionist
illusions
and
sectarian
understanding
which
gradually
weakened
their
international
perception
and
ties.
Illusions
about
peaceful
and
parliamentary
transition
to
socialism,
disavowing
some
of
the
basic
propositions
of
Marxism-Leninism,
like
the
dictatorship
of
the
proletariat
led
to
an
erosion
of
the
concept
of
proletarian
internationalism.
In
the
final
analysis
revisionism
leads
to
a
narrow
national
outlook
diverting
the
working
class
from
its
international
responsibility.
Sectarianism
also
achieved
the
same
results.
Its
sectarian
revolutionary
phrases
landed
it
in
repudiating
internationalism.
So
striking
was
this
deviation
in
certain
segments
that
in
the
Berlin
Conference
of
Communist
Parties
(1978),
the
late
Comrade
Brezhenv
had
to
take
note
of
it
and
say
“WE
should
like
to
lay
special
emphasis
on
the
concept
of
proletarian
internationalism
in
our
times.
It
is
one
of
the
main
principles
of
Marxism-Leninism.
Unfortunately,
some
have
begun
to
interpret
it
in
such
a
way
that,
in
fact,
little
is
left
of
internationalism.
In
their
opinion
the
internationalism
substantiated
and
promoted
by
Marx
and
Lenin
is
outmoded,
but
as
we
see,
to
enounce
international
proletarianism
is
to
deprive
the
Communist
party
and
the
working
class
movement
in
general
of
mighty
and
trusty
weapon.
It
would
work
in
favour
of
the
class
enemy
who,
by
the
way,
actively
coordinates
anti-Communist
activities
on
an
international
scale.”
Non-partisanship
for
the
socialist
camp-
the
historic
achievement
of
Marxism-Leninism
–
equating
the
NATO
and
Warsaw
alliances,
the
talk
about
two
super
powers,
eliminating
the
class
distinction
between
a
socialist
and
imperialist
state,
are
some
of
the
characteristics
of
those
who
question
the
validity
of
proletarian
internationalism.
This
also
lead
to
total
underestimation
of
the
role
of
the
socialist
camp
and
the
Soviet
Union
in
the
struggle
for
peace
and
lack
of
whole-hearted
support
to
the
concrete
and
vital
proposals
for
peace
made
by
the
USSR.
It
also
results
in
failure
to
expose
the
aggressive
war
policy
of
US
imperialism.
But
the
major
part
of
the
Communist
movement
continued
to
remain
loyal
to
the
revolutionary
traditions
and
fights
against
these
deviations.
It
once
more
proves
that
without
a
serious
inner
struggle
against
reformist
trends
the
victory
of
the
world
working
class
cannot
be
ensured.
The
maintenance
of
international
peace
has
become
the
most
urgent
question
facing
world
humanity.
The
danger
of
nuclear
war
being
organised
by
the
USA
hangs
over
the
world
and
the
entire
world
is
threatened
with
destruction.
The
two
social
systems
facings
each
other
have
directly
contradictory
aims
and
objects.
The
imperialist
system
considers
war
as
an
instrument
to
achieve
its
objective
of
domination.
The
socialist
system
demands
peace
for
the
world
so
that
each
nation
is
free
to
decide
its
own
future
without
coercion
and
massacre
of
millions
of
people
in
war.
The
fight
of
the
international
working
class
for
peace
is
now
merging
with
the
world
peoples’
struggle
for
survival
and
for
a
prosperous
future
free
from
poverty
and
misery.
It
is
not
accidental
that
the
Soviet
proposals
for
peace
and
reduction
of
nuclear
and
other
arms
draw
warm
response
from
millions
all
over
the
world.
Gorbachev’s
latest
proposals
for
step-by-step
reduction
of
arms
which
includes
unilateral
withdrawal
of
medium
distance
missiles
by
the
Soviets
has
again
evoked
wide
response
in
all
countries.
The
rejection
of
the
many
offers
made
by
the
Soviet
Union
the
repudiation
of
SALT-II
Agreement
and
all
the
refusal
to
give
up
Space
War
preparations
all
condemn
the
USA
in
the
eyes
of
the
people
who
in
millions
are
joining
the
peace
movement.
By
their
actions
people
are
distinguishing
between
the
camp
of
imperialist
and
the
camp
of
socialism
supporting
the
latter’s
proposals
in
display,
who
now
takes
a
neutral
position
between
the
camp
of
war
and
the
camp
of
peace
in
the
name
of
neutrality
in
the
conflict
between
the
two
‘Super
Powers’
reveal
a
consciousness
more
backward
than
that
of
ordinary
people.
Never
before
was
the
fight
of
the
working
class
for
peace
so
clearly
seen
and
understood
as
identical
with
the
interests
of
all
nations
and
all
peoples.
That
is
why
given
complete
working
class
unity
the
war-mangers
can
be
defeated.
Each
contingent
of
the
world
working
class
must
be
in
the
forefront
of
the
struggle
in
keeping
the
revolutionary
traditions
of
May
Day.
In
India
the
working
class
is
yet
to
realise
its
responsibility
and
throw
its
full
weight
in
the
struggle
against
war.
The
government
of
India’s
policy
of
non-alignment,
its
stand
against
war
and
in
defence
of
peace,
its
proposals
in
cooperation
with
other
non-aligned
governments
to
slow
down
the
arms
race,
constitute
great
assets
for
the
struggle
in
defence
of
peace
in
India.
Unfortunately
the
working
class
movement
has
failed
to
make
use
of
this
situation
to
embark
upon
a
vigorous
peace
movement
and
deepen
the
peace
appeal!
However, there are signs of change. Recently all important trade union centres of India met together in a convention to express their determination to fight war and protect peace. To carry forward this united understanding to the mass of workers, to make the Indian working class an active contingent of the world peace struggle is a responsibility of all trade unions. To discharge this task, is to remain true to the internationalist traditions of May Day.