Glotzer Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 6, 11 February 1933, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
(Continued from previous issue)
We must ask, naturally, if the initiators of the congress feared presenting a Communist position of the question of war, prior to the congress, and even if it is true that pressure was put on them and that a majority of delegates were Communists, were they not afraid then of driving away the pacifists? What was the attitude of the Pacifists and Socialists? Both saw that the Communists were the overwhelming majority of the congress. The pacifists expressed themselves as follows: We want a practical program of work when we get back to the campus. We are not concerned with your resolutions since you will adopt them, anyway, notwithstanding what we say. Go ahead, we will wait for a practical resolution. The Socialists were similarly unconcerned. It is clear again, that you cannot play around with the question of program. The policy of playing hide and seek with pacifists and liberals and socialists is a fatal one and even more fatal is the one to attempt to unite on the basis of a liquidation of principle which the Communists came very near doing, completely. As such they maintained a minimum political correctness as expressed in the main resolution.
The congress was thrown into a crisis when a member of the YCL introduced a motion to condemn the betrayal of the 2nd International during the war. The Socialist delegation quite sharply objected and stated that they would leave the congress if this resolution carried. They were not opposed to condemning those leaders of the 2nd International who betrayed the working class during the war, but insisted that all those who betrayed the proletariat during the war be similarly condemned, and they specifically named Foster and Cachin. This motion was changed to conform to the proposal and attitude of the Socialists and carried. Upon the passage of another motion calling for support of the Amsterdam Congress in the form of the American Committee against War, the Socialists ceased to participate in the congress because, said they, the passage of this motion signified accepting the attacks against the 2nd International contained in the decisions of Amsterdam, which they as Socialists could not accept. The discussion was extremely heated and indicated a split situation.
The split situation became evident upon the election of an executive committee to carry through the decisions of the Congress. The Socialists declined to accept because of the passage of the above-mentioned resolution. The Pacifists would not accept unless the Socialists did. Pleas for unity came from all sides of the hall and upon those pleas a YCL member introduced a motion to rescind the motion upon which the socialists broke from the conference. In spite of the Opposition of Henderson and a large section of the delegates, this motion carried and the Socialists remained and were accepted on the Committee.
An amusing incident took place which indicated just how the Socialists and pacifists were actually fooled by the character of the congress. The pacifists declared that all tendencies must be represented on the Committee. If only NSL members were on the Committee with pacifists, that would mean that the committee would be primarily Communist with no other representation. They demanded that on this committee there must be socialists in addition to pacifists in order to make a united front committee that would consist of all three tendencies. In spite of the efforts of the leaders of the NSL, the Party and YCL, all through the pre-congress period, to hide and cover up their Communist color, the NSL in the congress was synonymous to Communism in the eyes of the pacifists and socialists, and they conducted themselves accordingly. When acceptances were taken up for the executive committee each delegate was to answer in addition to his school organization, his political affiliation. The YCL members of the NSL in accepting on the committee replied: member of the NSL; the socialists answered: League for Industrial Democracy and Socialist. The pacifist answer should be clear. Our comrade Geltman in reply declared himself member of the NSL, and Communist. When this roll was taken again the YCL members continued to hide their identity which was clear to all. On this round comrade Geltman announced that he was a Left Oppositionist much to the dismay of the YCL.
Thus the congress ended. What did it actually accomplish? It gathered together a number of students from various parts of the country to decide upon holding meetings on the campus to declare against war and militarism, to fight against the ROTC, to propagate and agitate against war. It is now almost a month since the congress ended. For all practical purposes the congress might not have existed. The ripples caused by it, have like those of Amsterdam, settled into a dead calm. The criticisms that we made prior to the congress, and at the congress through the speeches of our comrades remain correct and real to this day. The weakness[es] of the congress are to be sought in its political character. It was separated, in spite of everything from the working class. It was not based upon reality. There were no worker delegates to give character to the congress. The attempt to transform the political nature of the congress toward its close only brought confusion among the delegates. Those Communist delegates who argued so vehemently against the position of the Opposition had later to defend the main political contentions of the Opposition against the attacks of the pacifists and socialists. The congress itself vindicated every criticism that the Opposition made. It was false to hold such a conference before a working class movement on a united front basis existed, to fight on concrete issues. If such a proletarian organization had been in existence, it might have been possible to organize a student movement that would attach itself to such a workers’ movement. As it is the congress remains suspended in mid-air trying to find a place for itself. That the congress changed many of its plans is true. But the original sin remains.
The responsibility for the whole affair falls upon the shoulders of the Party and the YCL. To be more precise upon the Communist International under the aegis of Stalinist revision of Communist policies. The Party was represented officially by Browder in the form of a speech. The YCL was absent, just as it was absent at the New York conference last summer. The criminal attempt made to hide the face of Communism resulted in confusion and error. The future of the committee elected by the congress is dubious. What shall be its mission? How will it carry through the struggle against war? Under the circumstances it can do nothing but dissolve of itself.
Albert Glotzer Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 23 July 2015