Comrades, I would like to make a few remarks relating to the speeches of Comrades Tanner and McLaine. Tanner says that he stands for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not exactly the same as we conceive it. He says that by the dictatorship of the proletariat we essentially mean the dictatorship of its organised and conscious minority.

And indeed, in the epoch of capitalism, when the working masses are subjected to ceaseless exploitation and cannot develop their human capacities, the most characteristic feature of workers' political parties is precisely that they can embrace only a minority of their class. A political party can unite only a minority of the class, just as the genuinely conscious workers in any capitalist society constitute only a minority of all workers. Therefore we are forced to admit that only this conscious minority can guide the broad working masses and lead them. And if Comrade Tanner says that he is an enemy of the party, but at the same time stands for the idea that a minority of the best organised and most revolutionary workers should show the way to the entire proletariat, then I say that there is in reality no difference between us. What is an organised minority? If this minority is truly conscious, if it knows how to lead the masses, if it is able to answer every question that comes onto the order of the day – then it is, in essence, a party. And if such comrades as Tanner, whom we especially reckon with as representatives of the mass movement – a thing that cannot be said without stretching the point of the representatives of the British Socialist Party – if these comrades are in favour of the existence of a minority that would resolutely fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat and would educate the working masses in this direction, then, in essence, such a minority is nothing other than a party. Comrade Tanner says that this minority must organise and lead the entire working mass. If Comrade Tanner and other comrades of the Shop Stewards group and the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) recognise this – and every day in conversations with them we see that they indeed recognise it – if they approve of the situation where a conscious communist minority of the working class leads the proletariat, then they must also agree that the meaning of all our resolutions is precisely this. And then the only difference existing between us is that they avoid the word “party” because among the English comrades there is a certain kind of prejudice against a political party. They imagine a political party only as something like the parties of Gompers and Henderson{98}, parties of parliamentary wheeler-dealers, betrayers of the working class. And if they imagine parliamentarism exactly as English and American parliamentarism is at present, then we are also enemies of such parliamentarism and such political parties. We need new parties, different parties. We need parties that would constantly be in real contact with the masses and would know how to lead these masses.

I turn to the third question that I wished to touch upon here in connection with Comrade McLaine’s speech. He is a supporter of the affiliation of the English Communist Party to the Labour Party. I have already spoken on this question in my theses on admission to the Third International[21]. In my pamphlet I left this question open{99}. However, after talking with many comrades, I have come to the conviction that the decision to remain in the Labour Party is the only correct tactic. But here Comrade Tanner gets up and declares: do not be too dogmatic. This expression is entirely out of place here. Comrade Ramsay says: let us, the English communists, decide this question ourselves. What would the International be if every little faction were to come and say: some of us are for this, some against; let us decide on our own? Why then would the International, the congress, and all this discussion be needed? Comrade McLaine spoke only of the role of the political party. But the same applies to the trade unions and to parliamentarism. It is quite true that the majority of the best revolutionaries are against affiliation to the Labour Party because they have a negative attitude to parliamentarism as a means of struggle. Perhaps it would be best, therefore, to refer this question to a commission. It must discuss it, examine it, and it absolutely must be settled by this congress of the Communist International. We cannot agree that it concerns only the English communists. We must say in general what tactic is correct.

Now I shall dwell on some of Comrade McLaine’s arguments in connection with the question of the British Labour Party. We must speak openly: the Communist Party can affiliate to the Labour Party only on condition that it preserves full freedom of criticism and can carry out its own policy. This is the most important thing. When Comrade Serrati says on this matter about class collaboration, I declare: this is not class collaboration. If the Italian comrades tolerate opportunists like Turati and Co. in their party, i.e., bourgeois elements, that, indeed, is class collaboration. But in this case, in relation to the British Labour Party, it is a matter only of collaboration between the advanced minority of the English workers and their overwhelming majority. The members of the Labour Party are all members of the trade unions. This is a very original structure that we do not find in any other country. This organisation embraces 4 million workers out of 6 or 7 million trade union members. They are not asked about their political convictions. Let Comrade Serrati prove to me that anyone will prevent us from using the right of criticism there. When you prove that, only then will you prove that Comrade McLaine is mistaken. The British Socialist Party can freely say that Henderson is a traitor, and yet remain within the ranks of the Labour Party. And here the collaboration of the vanguard of the working class with the backward workers, with the rearguard, is being realised. This collaboration has such great significance for the whole movement that we categorically insist that the English communists should serve as the connecting link between the party, i.e., the minority of the working class, and the whole remaining mass of workers. If the minority does not know how to lead the masses, to establish close ties with them, then it is not a party and is worth nothing at all, even though it calls itself a party or the national committee of the Soviets of shop stewards – as far as I know, the Soviets of shop stewards in England have their own national committee, a central leadership, and that is already a step towards a party. Consequently, if it is not refuted that the British Labour Party consists of proletarians, then this is collaboration between the vanguard of the working class and the backward workers, and if this collaboration is not systematically carried out, then the Communist Party is worth nothing and then there can be no talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And if our Italian comrades have no more convincing arguments, then we shall have to settle the question finally later on here on the basis of what we know, and we will come to the conclusion that affiliation is the correct tactic.

Comrades Tanner and Ramsay tell us that the majority of the English communists will not agree to affiliation, but must we necessarily agree with the majority? Not at all. If it has not yet understood what tactic is correct, perhaps we can wait. Even the parallel existence of two parties for a time would be better than a refusal to answer the question of what tactic is correct. Of course, proceeding from the experience of all the members of the congress, on the basis of the arguments presented here, you will not insist that we immediately pass a resolution on the immediate creation of a single communist party in all countries. That is impossible. But to state our opinion openly, to give directives – that we can do. We must examine the question raised by the English delegation in a special commission and then say: the correct tactic is affiliation to the Labour Party. If the majority is against this, we must organise the minority separately. This will have an educational significance. If the English working masses still believe in the old tactic, we shall verify our conclusions at the next congress. But we cannot say that this question concerns only England – that would be an imitation of the worst habits of the Second International. We must state our opinion openly. If the English communists do not reach an agreement and if a mass party is not created, then a split is, one way or another, inevitable[22].