Comrades, I shall confine myself to a brief introduction, and then Comrade Maring, former secretary of our commission, will present you with a detailed report on the changes we have made to the theses. After him Comrade Roy will take the floor, having drafted the supplementary theses. Our commission unanimously adopted both the initial theses{23} as amended and the supplementary theses. Thus we have managed to achieve complete unanimity on all the most important questions. Now I shall make a few brief remarks.

First of all, what is the most important, fundamental idea of our theses? The distinction between oppressed and oppressing nations. We emphasize this distinction – in contradistinction to the Second International and bourgeois democracy. For the proletariat and the Communist International, it is especially important in the epoch of imperialism to establish concrete economic facts and, in resolving all colonial and national questions, to proceed not from abstract propositions but from the phenomena of concrete reality.

The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the fact that the entire world, as we observe, is divided at present into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressing nations, possessing colossal wealth and mighty military force. The enormous majority, numbering more than a billion—probably a billion and a quarter people—if we take the total population of the earth at one and three-quarters billion, i.e., roughly 70% of the earth's population, belongs to the oppressed nations, which either are in direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonial states, such as, for example, Persia, Turkey, China, or else, having been defeated by the army of a major imperialist power, have by virtue of peace treaties found themselves in strong dependence upon it. This idea of distinction, of the division of nations into oppressing and oppressed, runs through all the theses, not only through the first ones, published under my signature and printed earlier, but also through Comrade Roy's theses. The latter have been written chiefly from the perspective of the position of India and other major Asian peoples oppressed by England, and therein lies their greatest significance for us.

The second guiding thought of our theses consists in the fact that in the present world situation, after the imperialist war, the mutual relations of peoples, the entire world system of states is determined by the struggle of a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and Soviet states, at the head of which stands Soviet Russia. If we lose sight of this, we shall be unable to pose any national or colonial question correctly, even if we were to discuss the most remote corner of the world. Only proceeding from this point of view can political questions be correctly posed and resolved by communist parties both in civilized and in backward countries.

Thirdly, I should particularly like to emphasize the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. It is precisely this question that gave rise to certain disagreements. We debated whether it would be principally and theoretically correct to declare that the Communist International and communist parties should support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries, or not; as a result of this discussion we arrived at a unanimous decision to speak instead of "bourgeois-democratic" movement of the national-revolutionary movement. There can be no question whatsoever that every national movement can only be bourgeois-democratic in character, because the main mass of the population in backward countries consists of peasantry, which is the representative of bourgeois-capitalist relations. It would be utopian to think that proletarian parties, if they can arise at all in such countries, could, without being in definite relations to the peasant movement, without actively supporting it, conduct communist tactics and communist policy in these backward countries. But here objections were raised that if we speak of bourgeois-democratic movement, all distinction between reformist and revolutionary movement will be erased. And yet this distinction has recently manifested itself with complete clarity in backward and colonial countries, because the imperialist bourgeoisie strives with all its might to implant reformist movements even among the oppressed peoples. A certain rapprochement has occurred between the bourgeoisie of exploiting and colonial countries, so that very often—probably even in the majority of cases—the bourgeoisie of oppressed countries, although it supports national movements, at the same time, in agreement with imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., together with it, fights against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. In the commission this was proven irrefutably, and we considered it the only correct course to take account of this distinction and almost everywhere replace the expression "bourgeois-democratic" with the expression "national-revolutionary." The meaning of this replacement is that we, as communists, should and will support bourgeois liberation movements in colonial countries only in those cases where these movements are truly revolutionary, where their representatives will not prevent us from educating and organizing the peasantry and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit. If, however, these conditions are not present, then communists must in these countries struggle against reformist bourgeoisie, to which belong also the heroes of the Second International. Reformist parties already exist in colonial countries, and sometimes their representatives call themselves social-democrats and socialists. This distinction has now been carried through all the theses, and I believe that because of this our position is now formulated much more precisely.

Next, I should like to make a remark about peasant Soviets. The practical work of Russian communists in the colonies that formerly belonged to tsarism, in such backward countries as Turkestan and so forth, posed before us the question of how to apply communist tactics and policy in precapitalist conditions, because the most characteristic feature of these countries is that they are still dominated by precapitalist relations, and therefore there can be no question of a purely proletarian movement there. In these countries there is almost no industrial proletariat. In spite of this, we have assumed and must assume the role of leaders there. Our work has shown us that in these countries we must overcome colossal difficulties, but the practical results of our work have also shown that, despite these difficulties, we can awaken in the masses the striving for independent political thought and independent political activity even there, where there is almost no proletariat. This work was more difficult for us than for comrades from Western European countries, because the proletariat in Russia is overwhelmed with state work. It is quite understandable that peasants, existing in semifeudal dependence, can perfectly well assimilate the idea of Soviet organization and realize it in practice. It is also clear that the oppressed masses, exploited not only by merchant capital but also by feudal lords and the state on a feudal basis, can employ this weapon, this form of organization, even in their conditions. The idea of Soviet organization is simple and can be applied not only to proletarian but also to peasant, feudal, and semifeudal relations. Our experience in this field is not yet very great, but the debates in the commission, in which several representatives of colonial countries participated, have proven to us with complete irrefutability that in the theses of the Communist International it is necessary to point out that peasant Soviets, Soviets of the exploited, are a means suitable not only for capitalist countries but also for countries with precapitalist relations, and that it is an absolute obligation of communist parties and of those elements that are ready to create communist parties to conduct propaganda for the idea of peasant Soviets, Soviets of the toiling masses everywhere and in every place—both in backward countries and in colonies—and, wherever conditions permit, they should immediately make attempts to create Soviets of the toiling people.

Here before us opens a very interesting and important sphere of practical work. Our overall experience in this respect is not yet very great, but gradually we shall accumulate more and more material. There can be no dispute about the fact that the proletariat of advanced countries can and must help the backward toiling masses and that the development of backward countries can emerge from its present stage when the victorious proletariat of Soviet republics extends a hand to these masses and is able to give them support.

On this question, the commission conducted rather lively debates not only in connection with the theses signed by me, but even more in connection with Comrade Roy's theses, which he will defend here and to which certain amendments were unanimously adopted.

The question was posed as follows: can we recognize as correct the assertion that the capitalist stage of development of the national economy is inevitable for those backward peoples who are now being liberated and among whom, after the war, movement along the path of progress is now observed. We answered this question in the negative. If the revolutionary victorious proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal, then it is incorrect to assume that the capitalist stage of development is inevitable for backward peoples. In all colonies and backward countries we must not only form independent cadres of fighters, party organizations, not only immediately conduct propaganda for the organization of peasant Soviets and strive to adapt them to precapitalist conditions, but the Communist International must establish and theoretically justify the proposition that with the aid of the proletariat of advanced countries, backward countries can pass to the Soviet system and through certain stages of development – to communism, bypassing the capitalist stage of development.

What means are necessary for this cannot be indicated in advance. Practical experience will show us this. But it is established definitely that the idea of Soviets is close to all toiling masses among the most remote peoples, that these organizations, the Soviets, must be adapted to the conditions of precapitalist social system, and that the work of the communist party in this direction must begin immediately throughout the world.

I should also like to note the significance of revolutionary work by communist parties not only in their own country but also in colonial countries, and especially among the troops which the exploiting nations employ to keep the peoples of their colonies in subjection.

Comrade Quitch, from the British Socialist Party, spoke about this in our commission. He said that the average English worker would consider it treason to help enslaved peoples in their rebellions against English rule. It is true that the jingoistically{101} and chauvinistically inclined working aristocracy of England and America represents the greatest danger to socialism and the strongest support of the Second International, that here we are dealing with the greatest betrayal on the part of leaders and workers belonging to this bourgeois International. In the Second International they also discussed the colonial question. The Basel Manifesto{102} also spoke about this with perfect clarity. The parties of the Second International promised to act revolutionarily, but we do not see actual revolutionary work and aid to the exploited and dependent peoples in their rebellions against oppressing nations from the parties of the Second International, and, I believe, also from the majority of parties that have broken with the Second International and desire to enter the Third International. We must declare this aloud, and it cannot be refuted. We shall see whether an attempt at refutation is made.

All these considerations have formed the basis of our resolutions, which are, it is true, excessively lengthy, but I believe that they will nonetheless be useful and will contribute to the development and organization of genuinely revolutionary work on national and colonial questions, which constitutes our main task.

"Vestnik of the 2nd Congress of the Communist International" No. 6, August 7, 1920

Printed from the text of the book "2nd Congress of the Communist International. Stenographic Report," 1921, checked against the text of the German edition "Der zweite Kongreβ der Kommunist. Internationale"