Comrades, Comrade Gallacher began his speech by expressing regret that we are compelled here, for the hundredth and thousandth time, to hear phrases that Comrade MacLean and other British comrades have already repeated thousands of times in speeches, newspapers, and journals. I believe there is no reason to regret this. The method of the old International consisted in referring such questions for decision to the separate parties of the interested countries. This was fundamentally mistaken. It is quite possible that we do not have fully precise knowledge of the conditions in one or another party, but here the matter concerns the principled substantiation of the tactics of the communist party. This is very important, and we must, on behalf of the Third International, clearly set forth the communist viewpoint here.

First of all, I should like to note a small inaccuracy permitted by Comrade MacLean, which cannot be agreed with. He calls the Labour Party a political organization of the trade-union movement. He then repeated this once more: the Labour Party "is the political expression of the trade-union movement." I have encountered this view several times in the newspaper of the British Socialist Party. This is not correct, and partly this gives rise to opposition, in a certain measure entirely justified, from English revolutionary workers. Indeed, the notions of "political organization of the trade-union movement" or "political expression" of this movement are erroneous. Of course, the Labour Party consists for the most part of workers. However, whether a party is truly a political workers' party or not depends not only on whether it consists of workers, but also on who leads it and what the content of its actions and its political tactics are. Only this last determines whether we have before us a truly political party of the proletariat. From this sole correct point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because although it consists of workers, it is led by reactionaries—the worst reactionaries, acting entirely in the spirit of the bourgeoisie; it is an organization of the bourgeoisie, existing for the purpose of systematically deceiving workers by means of English Noskes and Scheidemanns.

But here we have another point of view, defended by Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst and Comrade Gallacher, which reveals their opinion on this question. What was the content of the speeches of Gallacher and many of his friends? They tell us: we are not sufficiently connected with the masses; but consider the British Socialist Party—it still has an even worse connection with the masses, it is very weak. And Comrade Gallacher related to us here how he and his comrades truly excellently organized the revolutionary movement in Glasgow, in Scotland, and how during the war they maneuvered tactically very well, how they skillfully rendered support to the petty-bourgeois pacifists Ramsay MacDonald and Snowden when they came to Glasgow, in order by means of this support to organize a large mass movement against the war.

Our very aim consists precisely in introducing this excellent new revolutionary movement, represented by Comrade Gallacher and his friends, into the communist party with authentic communist, that is, Marxist, tactics. This is our task now. On the one hand, the British Socialist Party is too weak and does not know how to conduct agitation properly among the masses; on the other hand, we have young revolutionary elements, so well represented here by Comrade Gallacher, who, although they are connected with the masses, are not a political party, and are in this sense even weaker than the British Socialist Party, and do not at all know how to organize their political work. In such a situation, we must express our opinion on correct tactics quite openly. When Comrade Gallacher, speaking of the British Socialist Party, said that it was "hopelessly reformist," he undoubtedly exaggerated. But the general meaning and content of all the resolutions adopted by us here show with absolute definiteness that we demand a change in the tactics of the British Socialist Party in this direction, and the sole correct tactic of Gallacher's friends will consist in their immediate entry into the communist party for the purpose of reconstructing its tactics in the spirit of the resolutions adopted here. If you have so many supporters that you can arrange mass public meetings in Glasgow, then it will not be difficult for you to bring into the party more than ten thousand. The last congress of the British Socialist Party, which took place in London three to four days ago, decided to rename the party communist and introduced into the program a point on participation in parliamentary elections and entry into the Labour Party. At the congress, ten thousand organized members were represented. For the Scottish comrades it would therefore be quite easy to draw into this "Communist Party of Great Britain" more than ten thousand revolutionary workers, who better master the art of work among the masses, and thus change the old tactics of the British Socialist Party in the spirit of more successful agitation, in the spirit of more revolutionary action. Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst indicated several times in the commission that in England "leftists" are needed. I, of course, replied that this is entirely correct, but only one must not oversalt it with "leftism." She further said that "we are the best pioneers, but for now we only make more noise." I understand this not at all in a bad sense, but in the good sense of the word—that they better know how to conduct revolutionary agitation. This we value and should value. This we expressed in all our resolutions, because we always emphasize that we can recognize a party as a workers' party then, and only then, if it is truly connected with the masses and struggles against the old, thoroughly rotten leaders, both against those standing on the right flank who are chauvinists and against those who occupy an intermediate position, like the right independents in Germany. In all our resolutions we have asserted and repeated this ten and more times, and this is precisely what it means—that we demand transformation of the old party in the sense of its closer connection with the masses.

Sylvia Pankhurst further asked: "Is it permissible for the communist party to enter another political party, which in turn enters the Second International?" And she answered that it is impossible. One must bear in mind that the English Labour Party is in peculiarly unique conditions: it is a very original party, or rather, not a party at all in the usual sense of the word. It consists of members of all trade unions, now numbering around four million members, and grants sufficient freedom to all political parties entering its composition. Thus there enters into it an enormous mass of English workers, led by the worst bourgeois elements, by social traitors, even worse than Scheidemann, Noske, and similar gentlemen. But at the same time, the Labour Party permits the British Socialist Party to be in its ranks and permits this latter to have its own organs of publication, in which members of the same Labour Party can freely and frankly declare that the leaders of the party are social traitors. Comrade MacLean precisely cited such declarations of the British Socialist Party. I also can attest that in the newspaper of the British Socialist Party "Call"{107} I read that the leaders of the Labour Party are social patriots and social traitors. This means that a party entering the Labour Party has the possibility not only to criticize sharply but openly and precisely to call by name the old leaders, speaking of them as social traitors. This is a very original situation, when a party, uniting enormous masses of workers in such a way as if it were a political party, is nevertheless compelled to grant its members complete freedom. Comrade MacLean pointed out here that at the congress of the Labour Party, the local Scheidemanns were forced to openly pose the question of entry into the Third International, and all local organizations and sections of this party were forced to discuss this question. Under such conditions it would be an error not to enter this party.

In a private conversation, Comrade Pankhurst declared to me: "If we are real revolutionaries and enter the Labour Party, then these gentlemen will expel us." But that would be not at all bad. In our resolution it is said that we are for entry, insofar as the Labour Party grants sufficient freedom for criticism. In this point we are consistent to the end. Comrade MacLean further emphasized that now in England such original conditions have developed under which a political party, if it wishes, can remain a revolutionary workers' party despite being connected to a peculiar four-million workers' organization, half trade-union, half political and led by bourgeois leaders. Under such conditions it would be the greatest error for the best revolutionary elements not to do everything possible to remain in this party. Let the gentlemen Thomases and other social traitors, whom you justly call that, expel you. This will have an excellent effect on the masses of English workers.

Comrades emphasize that the labor aristocracy in England is stronger than in any other country. This is indeed the case. For it has behind it not decades but centuries. There the bourgeoisie, which has behind it far greater experience—democratic experience—succeeded in corrupting the workers and creating among them a large stratum, which in England is larger than in other countries, but is still not so very large compared to the broad working masses. This stratum is thoroughly saturated with bourgeois prejudices and pursues a definite bourgeois reformist policy. Thus, in Ireland we see two hundred thousand English soldiers who suppress the Irish with terrible terror. English socialists do not conduct revolutionary propaganda among them. But we clearly indicated in our resolutions that we recognize as a member of the Communist International only those English parties which conduct genuine revolutionary propaganda among English workers and soldiers. I emphasize that neither here nor in the commissions did we encounter any objections to this.

Comrades Gallacher and Sylvia Pankhurst cannot deny this. They are unable to refute that the British Socialist Party, remaining in the ranks of the Labour Party, enjoys sufficient freedom to write that such and such leaders of the Labour Party are traitors; that these old leaders represent the interests of the bourgeoisie; that they are agents of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement—this is absolutely correct. When communists enjoy such freedom, they are obliged, if they wish to take into account the experience of revolutionaries of all countries and not only the Russian Revolution, and for we are here not at a Russian but at an international congress, to enter the Labour Party. Comrade Gallacher ironized over the fact that in this case we fell under the influence of the British Socialist Party. No, we convinced ourselves of this by the experience of all revolutions in all countries. We think that we must say this to the masses. The English communist party must retain the necessary freedom to expose and criticize the traitors of the workers, who are far stronger in England than in other countries. This is not difficult to understand. The assertion of Comrade Gallacher is incorrect, that by speaking in favor of entry into the Labour Party, we thereby repel from ourselves the best elements of English workers. We must test this by experience. We are convinced that all our resolutions and decisions which will be adopted by the congress will be printed in all English revolutionary-socialist newspapers and that all local organizations and sections will have the possibility to discuss them. The entire content of our resolutions speaks louder than clear that we are representatives of the revolutionary tactics of the working class in all countries and that our aim is struggle against the old reformism and opportunism. Events show that our tactics truly defeat the old reformism. And then all the best revolutionary elements of the working class, dissatisfied with the slow pace of development, which in England will proceed, perhaps, even slower than in other countries, will come to us. Slow development occurs because English bourgeoisie has the possibility of creating better conditions for the labor aristocracy, thereby retarding the revolutionary movement in England. Therefore English comrades should strive not only toward the revolutionization of the masses, which they do magnificently (Comrade Gallacher proved this), but at the same time toward the creation of a genuine political party of the working class. Neither Comrade Gallacher nor Sylvia Pankhurst, both of whom spoke here, yet belong to the revolutionary communist party. Such a magnificent proletarian organization as the Shop Stewards has not yet entered into a political party. If you organize yourselves politically, then you will see that our tactics are based on a correctly understood political development of the last decades and that a genuine revolutionary party can be created only when it absorbs all the best elements of the revolutionary class and uses every opportunity to struggle against reactionary leaders wherever they manifest themselves.

If the English communist party begins by acting revolutionarily in the Labour Party, and if the gentlemen Hendersons are forced to expel this party, then this will be a great victory of the communist and revolutionary workers' movement in England.

A brief newspaper report was printed on August 8, 1920, in the "Herald of the 2nd Congress of the Communist International," No. 7

First published in full in 1921 in the book "The 2nd Congress of the Communist International, Stenographic Report," Petrograd, 1921

Printed from the text of the book, collated with the text of the German edition "Der zweite Kongreβ der Kommunist. Internationale"