Datasets:

pkd

/

marxism-medium

like 1

In Hungary the verification of cadres made it easier to discover nests of provocateurs, agents of the enemy, who had sedulously, concealed their identity. Second, proper promotion of cadres. Promotion should not be something casual but one of the normal functions of the Party. It is bad when promotion is made exclusively on the basis of narrow Party considerations, without regard to whether the Communist promoted has contact with the masses or not. Promotion should take place on the basis of the ability, of the various Party workers to discharge particular functions, and of their popularity, among the masses. We have examples in our Parties of promotions which have produced excellent results. For instance, we have a Spanish woman Communist, sitting in the Presidium of this Congress, Comrade Dolores. Two years ago she was still a rank-and-file Party-worker. But in the very first clashes with the class enemy she proved to be an excellent agitator and fighter. Subsequently. promoted to the leading body. of the Party, she has proved herself a most worthy member of that body. I could point to a number of similar cases in several other countries, but in the majority of cases promotions are made in an unorganized and haphazard manner, and therefore are not always fortunate. Sometimes moralizers, phrasemongers and chatterboxes who actually harm the cause are promoted to leading positions. Third, the ability to use people to the best advantage. We must be able to ascertain and utilize the valuable qualities of every, single active member. There are no ideal people; we must take them as they are and correct their weaknesses and shortcomings. We know of glaring examples in our Parties of the wrong utilization of good, honest Communists who might have been very useful had they, been given work that they were better fit to do. Fourth, proper distribution of cadres. First of all, we must see to it that the main links of the movement are in the hands of capable people who have contacts with the masses, who have sprung from the grassroots, who have initiative and are staunch. The more important districts should have an appropriate number of such activists. In capitalist countries it is not an easy matter to transfer cadres from one place to another. Such a task encounters a number of obstacles and difficulties, including lack of funds, family considerations, etc., difficulties which must be taken into account and properly overcome. But usually we neglect to do this altogether. Fifth, systematic assistance to cadres. This assistance should consist in detailed instruction, in friendly check-up, in correction of shortcomings and errors, and in concrete day-to-day guidance of cadres. Sixth, care for the preservation of cadres. We must learn promptly to withdraw Party workers to the rear whenever circumstances so require and replace them by others. We must demand that the Party, leadership, particularly in countries where the Parties are illegal, assume paramount resposibility for the preservation of cadres. The proper preservation of cadres also presupposes a highly efficient organization of secrecy in the Party. In some of our Parties many, comrades think that the Parties are already prepared for the event of illegality even though they, have reorganized them only formally, according to ready-made rules. We had to pay very dearly for having started the real work of reorganization only after the Party had gone underground under the direct heavy blows of the enemy. Remember the severe losses the Communist Party of Germany suffered during its transition to underground conditions. Its experience should serve as a serious warning to those of our Parties which today are still legal but may lose their legal status tomorrow. Only, a correct policy in regard to cadres will enable our Parties to develop and utilize all available forces to the utmost, and obtain from the enormous reservoir of the mass movement ever fresh reinforcements of new and] better active workers. What should be our main criterion in selecting cadres? First, absolute devotion to the cause of the working class, loyalty to the Party, tested in face of the class enemy - in battle, in prison, in court.

First, absolute devotion to the cause of the working class, loyalty to the Party, tested in face of the class enemy - in battle, in prison, in court. Second, the closest possible contact with the masses. The comrades concerned must be wholly absorbed in the interests of the masses, feel the life pulse of the masses, know their sentiments and requirements. The prestige of the leaders of our Party organizations should be based, first of all, on the fact that the masses regard them as their leaders and are convinced through their own experience of their ability as leaders and of their determination and self-sacrifice in struggle. Third, ability independently to find one's bearings in given circumstances and not to be afraid of assuming responsibility in making decisions. He who fears to take responsibility is not a leader. He who is unable to display initiative, who says: 'I will do only what I am told,' is not a Bolshevik. Only he is a real Bolshevik leader who does not lose his head at moments of defeat, who does not get a swelled head at moments of success, who displays indomitable firmness in carrying out decisions. Cadres develop and grow best when they are placed in the position of having to solve concrete problems of the struggle independently, and are aware that they are fully responsible for their decisions. Fourth, discipline and Bolshevik hardening in the struggle against the class enemy as well as in their irreconcilable opposition to all deviations from the Bolshevik line. We must place all the more emphazis on these conditions which determine the correct selection of cadres, because in practice preference is very often given to a comrade who, for example, is able to write well and is a good speaker, but is not a man or woman of action, and is not suited for the struggle as some other comrade who may not be able to write or speak so well, but is staunch comrade, possessing initiative and contact with the masses, and is capable of going into battle and leading others into battle. Have there not been many cases of sectarians, doctrinaires or moralizers crowding out loyal mass workers, genuine workingclass leaders? Our leading cadres should combine the knowledge of what they must do with Bolshevik stamina revolutionary strength of character and the power to carry it through. In connection with the question of cadres, permit me, comrades, to dwell also on the very great part which the International Labour Defence is called upon to play, in relation to the cadres of the labour movement. The material and moral assistance which the ILD organizations render to our prisoners and their families, to political emigrants, to persecuted revolutionaries and anti-fascists, has saved the lives and preserved the strength and fighting capacity of thousands upon thousands of most valuable fighters of the working class in many countries. Those of us who have been in jail have found out directly, through our own experience the enormous significance of the activity of the ILD. By, its activity the ILD has won the affection, devotion and deep gratitude of hundreds of thousands of proletarians and of revolutionary elements among the peasantry and intellectuals. Under present conditions, when bourgeois reaction is growing, when fascism is raging and the class struggle is becoming more acute, the role of the ILD is increasing immensely. The task now before the ILD is to become a genuine mass organization of the working people in all capitalist Countries (particularly, in fascist countries, where it must adapt itself to the special conditions prevailing there). It must become, so to speak, a sort of 'Red Cross' of the united front of the proletariat and of the anti-fascist Popular Front, embracing millions of working people - the 'Red Cross' of the army of the toiling classes embattled I fascism, fighting for peace and socialism. If the ILD is to perform its part successfully,, it must train thousands of its own active militants, a multitude of its own cadres, ILD cadres, answering in their character and capacity to the special purposes of this extremely important organization. And here I must say as categorically, and as sharply as possible that while a bureaucratic approach and a soulless attitude towards people is harmful in the labour movement taken in general, in the sphere of activity, of the ILD such an attitude is an evil bordering on the criminal. The fighters of the working class, the victims of reaction and fascism who are suffering agony, in torture chambers and concentration camps, political emigrants and their families, should all meet with the most sympathetic care and solicitude on the part of the organizations and functionaries of the ILD. The ILD must still better appreciate and discharge its duty of assisting the fighters in the proletarian and anti-fascist movement, particularly in physically and morally preserving the cadres of the workers' movement. The Communists and revolutionary workers who are active in the ILD organizations must realize at every step the enormous responsibility they have before the working class and the Communist International for the successful fulfilment of the role and tasks of the ILD. Comrades, as you know, cadres receive their best train in the process of struggle, in surmounting difficulties and withstanding tests, and also from favourable and unfavourable examples of conduct. We have hundreds of exampies of splendid conduct in times of strikes, during demonstrations, in jail, in court. We have thousands of instances of heroism, but unfortunately also not a few cases of faintheartedness, lack of firmness and even desertion. We often forget these examples, both good and bad. We do not teach people to benefit by these examples. We do not show them what should be emulated and what rejected. We must study, the conduct of our comrades and militant workers during class conflicts, under police interrogation, in the jails and concentration camps, in court, etc. The good examples should be brought to light and held up as models to be followed, and all that is rotten, non-Bolshevik and philistine should be cast aside. Since the Reichstag Fire Trial we have had quite a few comrades whose statements before bourgeois and fascist courts show that numerous cadres are growing up with an excellent understanding of what really constitutes Bolshevik conduct in court. But how many even of you, delegates to the Congress, know the details of the trial of the railwaymen in Rumania, know about the trial of Fiete Schulze, who was subsequently beheaded by the fascists in Germany, the trial of our valiant Japanese comrade Itsikawa, the trial of the Bulgarian revolutionary soldiers, and many other trials at which admirable examples of proletarian heroism were displayed?

Such worthy examples of proletarian heroism must be popularized, must be contrasted with the manifestations of faint-heartedness, philistinism, and every kind of rottenness and frailty in cur ranks and the ranks of the working class. These examples must be used most extensively, in educating the cadres of the workers' movement. Comrades, our Party leaders often complain that there are no people, that they are short of people for agitational and propaganda work, for the newspapers, the trade unions, for work among the youth, among women. Not enough, not enough - that is the cry. We simply haven't got the people. To this we could reply in the old yet eternally new words of Lenin: There are no people - yet there are enormous numbers of people. There are enormous numbers of people, because the working class and ever more diverse strata of society, year after year, throw up from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest.... At the same time we have no people, because we have... no talented organizers capable of organizing extensive and at the same time uniform and harmonious work that would give employment to all forces, even the most inconsiderable. (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 436-437) These words of Lenin must be throughly grasped by our Parties and applied by them as a guide in their everyday work. There are plenty of people. They need only to be discovered in our own organizations, during strikes and demon strations, in various mass organizations of the workers, in united front bodies. They must be helped to grow in the course of their work and struggle, they must be put in a situation where they can really be useful to the workers cause. Comrades, we Communists are people of action. Ours is the problem of practical struggle against the offensive of capital, against fascism and the threat of imperialist war, the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. It is precisely this practical task that obliges Communist cadres to equip themselves with revolutionary theory, for theory gives those engaged in practical work the power of orientation, clarity of vision, assurance in work, belief in the triumph of our cause. But real revolutionary theory is irreconcilably hostile to all emasculated theorizing, all barren play with abstract definitions. Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action; Lenin used to say. It is such a theory that our cadres need, and they need it as badly as they need their daily bread, as they need air or water. Whoever really wishes to rid our work of deadening, cut-and-dried schemes, of pernicious scholasticism, must burn them out with a red-hot iron, both by practical, active struggle waged together with and at the head of the masses, and by untiring effort to master the mighty, fertile, all powerful teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin. In this connection I consider it particularly necessary to draw your attention to the work of our Party schools. It is not pedants, moralizers or adepts at quoting that our schools must train. No. It is practical frontrank fighters in the cause of the working class that should graduate from there, people who are front-rank fighters not only because of their boldness and readiness for self-sacrifice, but also because they see further than rank-and-file workers and know better than they the path that leads to the emancipation of the working people. All sections of the Communist International must without any dilly-dallying seriously take up the question of the proper organization of Party schools, in order to turn them into smithies where these fighting cadres are forged. The principal task of our Party schools, it seems to me, is to teach the Party and Young Communist League members there how to apply, the Marxist-Leninist method to the concrete situation in particular countries, to definite conditions, not the struggle against an enemy 'in general,' but against a particular, definite enemy. This makes necessary a study of not merely the letter of Leninism, but its living revolutionary spirit. There are two ways of training cadres in our Party schools: First method: teaching people abstract theory, trying to give them the greatest possible dose of dry learning, coaching them how to write theses and resolutions in a literary style and only incidentally touching upon the problems of the particular 'country, of the particular labour movement, its history and traditions, and the experience of the Communist Party in question. Second method: theoretical training in which mastering the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism is based on practical study by the student of the key problems of the struggle of the proletariat in his own country. On returning to his practical work, the student will then be able to find his bearings by himself, and become an independent practical organizer and leader capable of leading the masses in battle against the class enemy. Not all graduates of our Party schools prove to be suit able. There are many phrases, abstractions, a good deal of book knowledge and show of learning. But we need real truly Bolshevik organizers and leaders of the masses.

But we need real truly Bolshevik organizers and leaders of the masses. And we need them badly this very day. It does not matter if such students cannot write good theses (though we need that very much, too), but they must know how to organize and lead undaunted by difficulties, capable of surmounting them. Revolutionary theory is the generalized, summarized experience of the revolutionary movement. Communists must carefully utilize in their countries not only the experience of the past but also the experience of the present struggle of other detachments of the international workers' movement. However, correct utilization of experience does not by any means denote mechanical transposition of readymade forms and methods of struggle from one set of conditions to another, from one country to another, as so often happens in our Parties. Bare imitation, simple copying of methods and forms of work, even of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in countries where capitalism is still supreme, may with the best of intentions result in harm rather than good, as has so often actually been the case. It is precisely from the experience of the Russian Bolsheviks that we must learn to apply effectually, to the specific conditions of life in each country, the single international line; in the struggle against capitalism we must learn pitilessly to cast aside, pillory and hold up to general ridicule all phrase -mongering, use of hackneyed formulas, pedantry and dogmatism. It is necessary to learn, Comrades, to learn always, at every, step, in the course of the struggle, at liberty and in jail. To learn and to fight, to fight and to learn. Comrades, never has any international congress of Communists aroused such keen interest on the part of world public opinion as we witness now in regard to our present Congress. It may be said without fear of exaggeration that there is not a single serious newspaper, not a single political party, not a single more or less serious political or social leader that is not following the course of our Congress with the closest attention. The eyes of millions of workers, peasants, small townspeople, office workers and intellectuals, of colonial peoples and oppressed nationalities are turned towards Moscow, the great capital of the first but not the last state of the international proletariat. In this we see a confirmation of the enormous importance and urgency of the questions discussed at the Congress and of its decisions. The frenzied howling of the fascists of all countries, particularly of rabid German fascism, only confirms us in the belief 'that our decisions have indeed hit the mark. In the dark night of bourgeois reaction and fascism in which the class enemy is endeavouring to keep the working masses of the capitalist countries, the Communist International, the international Party. of the Bolsheviks, stands out like a beacon, showing all mankind the one way to emancipation from the voke of capitalism, from fascist barbarity and the horrors of imperialist war. The establishment of unity of action of the working class is the decisive stage on that road. Yes, unity. of action by, the organizations of the working class of every trend, the consolidation of its forces in all spheres of its activity and in all sectors of the class struggle. The working class must achieve the unify of its trade unions. In vain do some reformist trade union leaders attempt to frighten the workers with the spectre of a trade union democracy. destroyed by the interference of the Communist Parties in the affairs of the united trade unions, by the existence of Communist factions within the trade unions. To depict us Communists as opponents of trade union democracy. is sheer nonsense. We advocate and consistently uphold the right of the trade unions to decide their problems for themselves. We are even prepared to forego the creation of Communist factions in the trade unions if that is necessary in the interests of trade union unity. We are prepared to come to an agreement on the independence of the united trade unions from all political parties. But we are decidedly opposed to any dependence of the trade unions on the bourgeoise, and do not give up our basic point of view that it is impermissible for trade unions to adopt a neutral position in regard to the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The working class must strive to secure the union of all forces of the working-class youth and of all organizations of the anti-fascist youth, and win over that section of the working youth which has come under the demoralizing influence of fascism and other enemies of the people. The working class must and will achieve unity of action in all fields of the labour movement. This will come about !he sooner the more firmly and resolutely we Communists and revolutionary workers of all capitalist countries apply. in practice the new tactical line adopted by our Congress in relation to the most important urgent questions of the international workers' movement. We know that there are many difficulties ahead. Our path is not a smooth asphalt road, our path is not strewn with roses. The working class will have to overcome many an obstacle, including obstacles in its own midst; it faces the task above all of reducing to naught the disruptive machinations of the reactionary elements of Social Democracy.

it faces the task above all of reducing to naught the disruptive machinations of the reactionary elements of Social Democracy. Many are the sacrifices that will be exacted under the hammer blows of bourgeois reaction and fascism. The revolutionary ship of the proletariat will have to steer its course through a multitude of submerged rocks before it reaches its port. But the working class in the capitalist countries is today no longer what it was in 1914, at the beginning of the imperialist war, nor what it was in 1918, at the end of the war. The working class has behind it twenty years of rich experience and revolutionary trials, bitter lessons of a number of defeats, especially in Germany, Austria and Spain. The working class has before it the inspiring example of the Soviet Union, the land of victorious socialism, an example of how the class enemy can be defeated, how the working class can establish its own government and build a socialist society . The bourgeoisie no longer holds undivided dominion over the whole expanse of the world. Now the victorious working class rules over one sixth of the globe. Soviets rule over a vast part of the great China. The working class possesses a firm, well-knit revolutionary vanguard, the Communist International. The whole course of historical development, Comrades, favours the cause of the working class. In vain are the efforts of the reactionaries, the fascists of every hue, the entire world bourgeoisie, to turn back the wheel of history. No, that wheel is turning forward and will continue to turn forward towards a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, until the final victory of socialism throughout the world. There is but one thing that the working class of the capitalist countries still lacks - unity in its own ranks. So let the battle cry of the Communist International, the clarion call of Marx, Engels and Lenin ring out all the more loudly from this platform to the whole world. Workers of all countries, unite... NOTES 1) Lerroux, Alexandro Garcia - Spanish politician and leader of the Republican Radical Party. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the first Republican government after the proclamation of the Republic of April 1931, sided with Franco during the fascist uprising. 2) Robles, Gil - Spanish reactionary statesman, minister in the Lerroux Government. 3) Referring to the defeat of the German revolution in 1918-1923, the defeat of the revolutionary movement in Austria in 1934 and the defeat of the workers' revolutions in Asturia (Spani) in 1934. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov 1948 People of Bulgaria in the Struggle for Democracy and Socialism Written: By Georgi Dimitrov, February 1948; Source: For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy! Vol. 2, no. 7; April 1, 1948; Transcribed: David Adams, March 2022. Abridged Report to the Second Congress of the Father Front of Bulgaria held in February 1948 Comrade Dimitroff devoted the first part of his report to an analysis of the international situation, to the struggle of the two camps—the democratic and anti-democratic camps. Profound changes have taken place on the international arena as a result of World War II, stated Comrade Dimitroff. Despite the expectations of world reaction the Soviet Union emerged from the war stronger than before, and with a greatly enhanced international prestige. A number of countries dropped out of the imperialist system. The people of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Albania, with the support of the Victorious Soviet Army, overthrew fascism, abolished imperialist dependence and took their fate into their own hands. The acute crisis in the colonial and dependent countries is likewise a big factor m the further crumbling of the pillars of imperialism. And the contradictions within the imperialist camp, for instance in relation to the Marshall Plan, to the formation of a Western bloc, etc., will play no small role in the future. Thus, the relation of forces between the imperialist and democratic camps as a result of World War II has changed sharply in favour of the democratic camp. In its struggle against reaction the democratic camp relies on the working class, on the working people of town and country, on the progressive intelligentsia, on the democratic movement in all lands, on the national-liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, on the new democracies. At the head of this camp stands the mighty Soviet Union. The democratic camp is a force strong enough to hold in check the imperialist robbers, to thwart their schemes and to save mankind from new and sanguinary imperialist adventures. The imperialist system—unable to give the people anything but devastating wars, is holding back the development of the productive forces, and is a brake on progress, science and culture. Historically, it has outlived itself and its doom is inevitable. The forces of peace, democracy and socialism, continued Dimitroff, are invincible. If, as pointed out in the Declaration of the conference of the nine Communist Parties in Poland, they display the necessary firmness and determination, new imperialist aggression is doomed to a complete fiasco. We are living at a time when Socialism is on the order of the day, when it is impossible to move forward without advancing towards Socialism. The way to Socialism is not the same in all countries. If differs in keeping with the historical, national and other peculiarities of the given country, but the Socialist path is inevitable and is the only correct path for all lands and all peoples. Comrade Dimitroff then dwelt on the historical roots of the Fatherland Front in Bulgaria. The creation of the Fatherland Front was not a chance thing; neither was it imported from abroad nor imposed from above. This salutary idea sprang from the people, crystallised as a result of the struggle of the working people against the treacherous Coburg monarchy, against the venal bourgeoisie and its anti-people's groups. The Principal Factors in the Development of the Fatherland Front Comrade Dimitroff described the following main factors in the development of the Fatherland Front as a movement of the people: To begin with the Fatherland Front organised the resistance of the Bulgarian people against the German enslavers and the monarcho-fascist dictatorship. The initial programme of the Front, broadcast on July 17, 1942 by the “Hristo Botjeff” station declared that the central task was: the liberation of the country from the German yoke and monarcho-fascist dictatorship, the going over of Bulgaria to the camp of the anti- Hitler coalition and the establishment of popular democratic authority. Guided by the Fatherland Front the resistance offered by the people to Hitler aggression gradually spread, and the monarcho-fascist clique was unable to dispatch Bulgarian troops to the Soviet-German front. The victories of the valiant, Soviet Army, the defeats suffered by the Germans on all fronts, the capitulation of fascist Italy, the growth of the people's liberation struggle in Yugoslavia, the march of the Soviet Army on the Danube—all this stimulated the mounting struggle of the popular masses to break with Hitler Germany, to save the country from disaster and to establish a genuine people's democratic government of Bulgaria. Fatherland Front committees, headed by the National Committee, sprang up throughout the country. An extensive partisan movement got underway. The various units united into partisan brigades and eventually into the people's liberation army with its General Headquarters. A nation-wide anti-fascist armed uprising began to mature and was brought to a head by the appearance of the victorious Soviet Army on the north-eastern frontier of Bulgaria. The bitter struggle of the Bulgarian people against reaction and fascism was crowned, on September 9, 1944, with complete victory. This was a people's victory, the victory of workers, peasants, handicraftsmen, progressive intelligentsia and the patriotic units of the army, in a word of all the healthy forces of our people, united under the banner of the Fatherland Front.

This was a people's victory, the victory of workers, peasants, handicraftsmen, progressive intelligentsia and the patriotic units of the army, in a word of all the healthy forces of our people, united under the banner of the Fatherland Front. Power was wrested from the hands of the capitalist bourgeoisie, the exploiting monarcho-fascist minority and placed in the hands of the overwhelming majority of the people under the guidance and active support of the working class. The people's anti-fascist uprising of September 9 marked a radical turning point in the development of our country. It opened a new era in her history, an era of profound revolutionary—political, economic, social and cultural reforms, which cleared the path leading to a new social order— Socialism. The second important element in the development of the Front was the participation of the new Bulgaria in the Patriotic War against Hitler Germany. The principal task of the Fatherland Front at the time was: All for the front, for a speedy victory over fascism. By taking part in the war our people, battling shoulder to shoulder with the glorious Soviet Army made their contribution to the liberation of the Balkans from the German yoke and to the complete debacle of Hitler Germany. After the victorious conclusion of the war the Fatherland Front posed as the cardinal task the struggle for a just peace, defence of the territorial integrity and national independence of the country, rehabilitation of the national economy, the elimination of reactionary saboteurs and disruptive elements who, with the aid of foreign support, were beginning to rear their heads. The efforts of the Fatherland Front were crowned with success. The Peace Treaty was signed and the government of the Fatherland Front was recognised also by Britain and the United States. The reactionary opposition, which, was systematically denounced and the leaders of which, as is known, were arrested in the act of preparing a coup d’état against the people's power, suffered a crushing defeat and were rendered harmless. The Constitution of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, adopted by the Great People's Assembly, secured the historical gains of the people's uprising of September 9 and opened the way for the further development of our country along the path of democracy and progress. During the past five years the Fatherland Front has traversed a glorious path of struggle. It has developed and grown stronger, has purged itself of overt and covert enemies. The various democratic circles and organisations that comprise the Fatherland Front have learnt to know each other better, have established a good working relationship and appreciate that the leading role of the working class is an essential element in consolidating the Fatherland Front and the people's democracy. Today we can confidently state that there is complete unanimity, as never before in the Front on all vital questions of the internal and foreign policy of our people's republic. Bulgaria's Foreign Policy Although the Front's history is but five years old, this short period has been a decisive period. During these five years fundamental State-political, economic, social and cultural reforms have been introduced under the leadership of the Fatherland Front, reforms which are literally transforming our country. As has been stressed time and again the Front saved Bulgaria from a third national disaster. The victorious people's uprising of September 9 and the arrival of the valiant Soviet troops in Bulgaria prevented the Anglo-American occupation or the country, with the possible participation of Turkish and Greek troops, planned in Cairo with the consent of the Muraffieff- Mushanoff-Buroff government. The Front prevented the partition of Bulgaria, which had been projected to meet the predatory claims of the Greek chauvinists and their high- ranking patrons. Thanks to this Bulgaria was able to sign dignified armistice terms and actually secured her freedom from foreign military occupation. The Soviet units that remained in Bulgaria protected our country against degrading and brutal occupation and guaranteed the people of Bulgaria the right freely to build their State on genuine democratic foundations. Thanks to Bulgaria's active participation in the war against fascist Germany she was able to sign in Paris a peace which, although containing a number of onerous and unjust conditions, and for the revision of which the people of Bulgaria are fighting, was the most favourable she could have reckoned on in conditions of the international situation at the time. Our greatest achievement was that we were able, thanks to the powerful support of the Soviet Union and the fraternal Slav countries, to preserve the integrity of our country and secure our national independence. The Fatherland Front effected a decisive turning point in the foreign policy of Bulgaria. Once and for all the Front wrested our country from the clutches of German imperialism, resolutely opposed all attempts of the foreign imperialist circles to dictate their will to the country and, in accordance with the traditions and will of the people of Bulgaria, steered the Bulgarian ship of state into channels of peace and cooperation with all the freedom-loving and democratic peoples, and first and foremost, with our liberator, the great Soviet Union. Rapprochement with Yugoslavia is of enormous significance for the future of our country. Our peoples, whom the German imperialists with the help of their agents incited to war against each other and divided in order to rule, found the true path leading to fraternity and unity, which was secured in the pact of friendship, cooperation and mutual, aid signed by the two countries. Thanks to the newly-established democratic systems the solidarity between the Slav states which for centuries had lived in isolation and discord, is growing into a big factor of peace, democracy and social progress. The policy of the Fatherland Front is not a racial policy and does not pursue the object of dividing Europe and the world into blocs; it is a policy of democracy and progress, a policy which aims to cooperate with all freedom-loving and democratic peoples to secure universal peace and their material and spiritual development on the basis of their national independence and in the spirit of the statues of UNO. We have demonstrated this in our treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, not only with Yugoslavia, but also with the non-Slav countries of Albania and Rumania, by our talks, which we negotiated for the same purpose, with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, and also by our readiness to cooperate with the States which respect our freedom and independence.

As in the past, so too in the future the principle of our foreign policy will continue to be joint defence against possible aggression, to secure our national independence, territorial integrity and State sovereignty. We have devoted special attention to strengthening our mutual economic and cultural ties, to mutual assistance in promoting our economy, which must make us independent of imperialist trusts and banks. It goes without saying, of course, that we haven’t the slightest intention of creating an Eastern bloc in any shape or form, despite all the false interpretations of the initiators of the Western bloc and their agents. The foreign press, as well as responsible and irresponsible people abroad make the absolutely unfounded allegation that Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania are interfering in the internal affairs of Greece and fanning civil war there. This allegation reveals the attempt of interested circles to shift the responsibility. It goes without saying that our people are vitally interested in their southern neighbour establishing a democratic regime, peace and order, for then our people can calmly continue their creative labour without being distracted by artificially-created border incidents and constant disorders. It is also natural that our people should sympathise with the struggle of the Greek people and be willing to help the victims of the terror in Greece, who are seeking asylum on our soil. But I reject categorically the charges made against the Bulgarian Government and emphatically state that responsibility for the civil war in Greece, which is causing disquiet in our country, rests wholly with the terrorist regime in Greece and with the foreign circles who are endeavouring with the aid of military force and blatant interference in the internal affairs of the country, to foist their will on the freedom-loving Greek people. The Achievements of the Bulgarian People The Fatherland Front has scored major successes also in the sphere of home policy. The Front resolutely routed the monarchist clique and Hitler agents, abolished all fascist organisations, gave free rein to the initiative and activity of the masses in all spheres of State and public life. It restored, extended and guaranteed the democratic rights and liberties of the people, gave them the opportunity to be the masters of their destiny. The women of Bulgaria were given equal rights and drawn into active public and political life. The Front gave the country's youth, who have reached the age of 18, the right to elect and be elected. Our young people are the pride of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Their patriotic exploits on the labour front call for special mention. Never in the past have the people of Bulgaria taken such an active and conscious part in the elections to the supreme organs of the State. In the 1945 November elections 3,862,492 citizens, that is, 86 per cent of the total number of electors went to the polls; 4,129,544 electors, that is, 91.6 per cent of the total number of electors took part in the referendum on the people's republic on September 8, 1946; 4,244,337, or 93.19 per cent of the electors cast their vote in the elections to the Great People's Assembly. These figures speak of the giant strides made by our people's democracy, especially when compared with the elections in the past and the elections in the countries of vaunted Western democracy. In the past the newspapers, as a rule, belonged to individual capitalists or capitalist circles, or were subsidised by doubtful sources for carrying out an anti-popular policy and propaganda. Progressive newspapers and magazines had no chance for development. Special draconic laws and censorship made it impossible for the people to express themselves. Under the people's democracy the principles of freedom of the press were brilliantly realised. The democratic political organisations of our people, their mass cultural organisations acquired the right and opportunity to publish their printed organ and freely express their opinion on all State and social matters. Never before have the workers, peasants, intelligentsia, handicraftsmen and all progressive citizens enjoyed such freedom and opportunities to foregather, organise, to use the squares, streets, halls, print shops and radio for their political and cultural activities. The trade unions in our country with its population of 7 million today operate freely and unhampered. There are close to 540,000 organised industrial and office workers not to mention the Peasants' union with 1,280,000 members, the Union of Handicraftsmen with 114,000 members, the cooperative organisations with more than 2,000,000 members, the Women's League with more than 600,000 members, the Youth League with close to 1,000,000 members, the organisation of school pupils with a membership of more than 600,000, etc. The people's democracy has fully realised the principle of freedom of conscience. Citizens can practise the religion of their choice. The Fatherland Front has given the national minorities inhabiting the country full equality of rights. Certain Turkish newspapers have slanderously alleged that the Turkish minority In Bulgaria does not enjoy full equality. This is an out and out falsehood, tor the Turkish minority has the unrestricted right to study in its native tongue and practise its national culture. The people's democracy, which was won with the blood of thousands of valiant champions against fascism and the untold suffering of the Bulgarian people, cannot tolerate a “freedom” which would be detrimental to the interests of the Bulgarian people and would, if anything be an enemy of the people. In our country there can be no freedom for the monarcho- capitalist clique, for those responsible for national disasters, for hangmen of the people, far fascists, conspirators and for those who want to restore the old regime. Everybody know that if prison is the place for the bandit armed with a gun the bandit wielding the pen must not be allowed to harm the people. The Fatherland Front has democratized and consolidated our beloved people's army. In the past the army was a tool in the hands of the monarchy and reactionary fascist clique to oppress to Bulgarian people, to uphold interest and aims alien to the people.

Today this army is an instrument of peace, freedom and independence of our people. Our arm and our valiant border guards protect the freedom of our native land. Bulgaria on the Road to Economic Progress After September 9 Bulgaria was faced with serious economic tasks. In the course of the war we had to satisfy the demands of the front and later rapidly heal the wounds inflicted on our economy by the war, resolutely take the path of economic development and secure the national independence and wellbeing of our people. To accomplish this we had to marshall our material, moral and labour resources along planned lines. The Two-Year Economic Plan adopted in the spring of 1947 is of outstanding significance for our people. This Plan projects the new direction of Bulgaria's economic development. In the future the planned economy will embrace, on a ever wider scale, the different branches of our national economy and, once and for all, will put an end to the anarchy in production and distribution. A planned system has become possible because the leadership of the state is in the hands of the people and because under the new power the social sector—State and cooperative—is steadily expanding. Our economic plan raises two basic tasks. The first is to surmount the difficulties we have inherited and to liquidate the consequences of the war. The second is to lay the foundation for the speedy industrialisation of our country, develop the electric power industry, increase coal output, mechanise agriculture, promote cattle breeding, improve and extend the transport system, develop and perfect the handicrafts trades, extend and promote home and foreign trade. Our country is very backward industrially. Only 8 per cent of the gainfully employed population is engaged in industry. In this respect practically all the West European and some of the Balkan countries have left us behind. The reason for this is to be found in the harmful anti-national policy of the former bourgeois reactionary and fascist governments, which turned our country into an agrarian appendage of the German imperialists and reduced her to a semi-colony. The capitalist class in Bulgaria was not concerned with building heavy industry. It was interested, in the main, in light industry which would yield quick and big returns. However, this capitalist class preferred, above all else, to go in for trade and speculation as the shortest path to getting rich quick. Although work had to be carried out under the most difficult conditions — the poor heritage, three years of drought, foreign trade difficulties — considerable achievements can be registered in the sphere of industry. Industrial output in 1947 was 30.5 per cent higher than the 1939 figure and 16 per cent above the 1946 level. Coal output in particular has increased by 80 per cent compared to 1939. The first oven of the huge “Vulkan” cement works in Dimitrovgrad went into operation in 1947 and the second is scheduled for this year. Construction work has started on the nitrogenous fertilizers plant in Dimitrovgrad which, upon completion, will produce 110,000 tons of fertilizers annually. The plant will also have a special shop which will produce sulphuric acid. An agreement has been signed with the USSR to build a liquid fuel plant. A particularly important measure in the sphere of our economic policy which will greatly promote the further development of the economy is the nationalisation of private enterprises and the mining industry. Whereas at the end of 1946 the State and cooperative sector contributed only 30 per cent of the country's industrial output today the State sector alone accounts for more than 80 per cent of the total output. Thus, the people's State has won one of the key positions in economy, which allows for the rapid all-round industrial development of our country. Nationalisation, which has met with the unanimous approval of the people of Bulgaria furnishes splendid opportunities for enlarging and reconstructing industry, for increasing and improving the quality of industrial output, and bringing down production costs. The new executives of the State enterprises, the workers, engineers and technical personnel are now engaged in creating large-scale industrial enterprises, by grouping together the smaller nationalised enterprises, especially in the engineering and chemical industries. Simultaneously the construction of new enterprises in proceeding apace—8,300 million lev have been appropriated for this purpose in 1948. The people's Government is devoting considerable attention to electrification which was very backward in the past and was allowed to develop only inasmuch as it suited the commercial and speculative interest of the Bulgarian and foreign capitalists. The output of electric power rose from 313 million kilowatt hours in 1944 to 488 million kilowatt hours in 1947. A number of steam and hydro-electric power stations are being built which in 1950-51 will satisfy the needs of electrification. Close to 300 towns and villages have been electrified and the 1948 plan provides for another 280 receiving electricity. The Fatherland Front has done well in agriculture. The area under crop has increased from 43 million decares in 1940 to 48 million in 1947. As a result of the agrarian reform 127,000 families received 1,252,000 decares of land and 7,863 families holdings.

As a result of the agrarian reform 127,000 families received 1,252,000 decares of land and 7,863 families holdings. 381 publicly-owned economies, and institutions received 71,000 decares of land. An important new feature in agriculture is the producer cooperatives, of which there are 579 comprised of about 50,000 landholders. These cooperatives possess a total of 1,890,000 decares of land. Despite the difficulties caused by three years of drought in succession, the cooperatives have taken a firm foothold. The peasants are beginning to regard them as the surest way to developing our economy and enhancing the wellbeing of the rural population. We are increasing the production of agricultural machines as a means of further promoting agriculture and in the near future will have our own agricultural machine-building industry. We are establishing 30 machine and tractor stations to supply agriculture with the necessary implements, machines and especially tractors to cultivate the land. In all we shall have 70 machine and tractor stations this year. Hundreds of thousands of decares of marshland have been drained and converted into first-class fertile soil by the erection of dams along the Danube. A reservoir, hundreds of kilometres of new canals, and pumping station are under construction. The Fatherland Front has embarked on extensive construction activities, the results of which will be apparent within the next few years. Millions of decares of land will be irrigated and fertility increased threefold. Considerable efforts are being exerted to promote cattle breeding, for which purpose more than 922 cattle raising farms have been established. Fodder stocks have been increased. We have built also a number of district incubators. The planned autumn sowing was fulfilled 101 per cent and undoubtedly the spring sowing will be carried out just as successfully. Until September 9, 1944 Bulgaria's foreign trade was channelled exclusively in the interests of the big private firms and German imperialism and mainly catered to Germany. September 9 found Bulgaria economically isolated. The Government took immediate measures to restore and extend trade relations with the outside world. It was able to sign a trade agreement with the Soviet state, which rendered invaluable economic add in rehabilitating our national economy. The Soviet Union supplied us with a number of machines and basic materials for industry, rendered extensive assistance in food supplies by sending 130,000 tons of grain and fodder and 30,000 tons of hay. We will be receiving another 75,000 tons of wheat from the Soviet Union during the early part of the current year. Apart from this the Soviet Union has granted us a trade credit of 5,000,000 dollars, has helped us in our industrialisation plans by agreeing to build, on the deferred payment system, a chemical plant with an electric power station in Dimitrovgrad and a liquid fuel plant in the Burga area. Trade agreements have been signed also with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy and Sweden. Special import-export centres—State and mixed—have been organised which now control the whole of foreign trade. Thus, foreign trade which in the past, was a means of robbing the people of Bulgaria has become an important factor in the development of the country's national economy. Our enemies tried to scare us by saying that the financial policy of the Fatherland Front would lead the country to disaster and the Bulgarian people would not trust the new financial institution. However, the facts tell a different story: deposits in the savings bank and in the Agricultural and Cooperative Bank of Bulgaria have considerably increased. By nationalising the banks the people of Bulgaria have eliminated the remaining parasitic private banks from the banking system and made the State the master of credits in the country. Whereas in the past the working people were compelled to work for the fascist state now, that they are the masters of their country they are working with great enthusiasm, despite the still unsatisfactory material conditions, and are confident that only thus will they be able to improve their life. Labour emulation and shock-brigade work are a new impulse to labour, hitherto unknown in the history of Bulgaria. Hundreds of thousands of people are setting examples of how to work for our native land. We can say that emulation is getting to be a permanent and essential factor on the labour front. We now have innovators and rationalisers in industry who are facilitating the labour processes and increasing output. One of the best examples of the genuinely popular and democratic character of the Front is the fact that all really talented members of the intelligentsia capable of creative work are either actively participating in building up our people's republic, or are facilitating this building in every way. None can deny that there is not a single really prominent worker in the sphere of science, art and culture who is not contributing to the great constructive work of the Front. The Principal Tasks of the Fatherland Front The tasks which the Fatherland Front programme outlined in 1942 have, in the main, been fulfilled. The Front must now renew its programme and define its new tasks in accordance with the vital interests of the people and with the further development of the country.

The Front must now renew its programme and define its new tasks in accordance with the vital interests of the people and with the further development of the country. In short, these tasks are as follows: First, to educate the popular masses in the spirit of the people's Constitution, to inculcate and strengthen the consciousness that they are strong and that they are masters of their own destiny; to educate the masses politically, so that all citizens of the people's republic take an active part in governing the country; to develop among the people a sense of national dignity, of patriotic duty and readiness to defend the interests of the State and people. Second, by every means to facilitate the development of the productive forces both in industry and agriculture; to industrialise and electrify the country and thus to increase to the maximum her economic power, to transform Bulgaria into a modern industrial-agrarian country with a highly-developed industry, with an abundance of electric energy and irrigation, a well-developed transport system, and mechanised agriculture; to extend and develop the State sector, that is, the people's sector of the national economy and to set up a network of agricultural and artisan cooperatives, rendering, at the same time, all-round assistance and protection to individual agricultural producers, to handicraftsmen, etc., and to improve the material and cultural wellbeing of the people. Third, to strengthen the defence capacity of the country by preparing the people to defend their freedom and independence from any foreign encroachment. Fourth, to secure the carrying out of a consistent and correct foreign policy based on the principles of a lasting and democratic peace and on genuine and unbreakable friendship with the Soviet Union, which is the keystone of this policy; to secure also the policy of fraternity and friendship with the people of Yugoslavia, and cooperation with all near and distant freedom-loving peoples, based on equality and respect of national independence, on an all-round system of allied treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with all Slav and non-Slavic democratic countries for defence against imperialist aggression and for economic prosperity. The realisation of these tasks spells the elimination of the remnants of the capitalist system of exploitation in our country. The Organizational Structure of the Fatherland Front The new tasks call for a reorganisation of the Fatherland Front. The Front has never been merely a party coalition, an agreement between leaders of different parties for temporary aims and tasks. From the very outset our Front was a popular movement. However, formerly due to necessity its leadership bore certain features of a party coalition—features which the Front in the process of development, is gradually abandoning. Hitherto the Front had no organisation and no elected leading organs. The realisation of our new tasks is impossible without the maximum unity and welding together of the popular forces, without increased consciousness and active participation by the citizens of the people's republic, without the unified and authoritative guidance of the growing activity of the working people. For these reasons it is necessary to reorganise the Front into a united people's social-political organisation with rules of discipline obligatory for all its members, and possessing a unified general programme and elected leadership. The draft statutes of the Front contain the main organisational principles of this unified people's social-political organisation. The main principle of the new organisation of the Fatherland Front will be democratic centralism. This means that all organs of the Front, from the lowest to the highest, are elected, that they report to their corresponding organisations, that the lower organs submit to the higher, the minority to the majority, that the decisions of the leading organs are binding for all members of the Front organisations; it means also the broad development of constructive, creative criticism and self-criticism. All this guarantees that the Front will possess a sound organisation capable of guiding our people and their great work of construction. Anyone, regardless of party membership, nationality, religion and social position, can be a member of the Front, provided he accepts the Front Statutes and programme, submits to its discipline, works in one of its organisations and pays membership dues. The doors of the Front are closed for those who serve reaction, directly or indirectly, who took part in persecuting and murdering antifascists or who actively encouraged and supported fascist tyranny. In this way the Fatherland Front becomes a genuine popular organisation open to all honest citizens ready to work on behalf of our country. The transformation of the Front into a unified popular social- political body does not exclude the existence and activity of the various parties forming the Front. The idea that the time has come to liquidate the parties and that these parties have outlived their role is a harmful prejudice. There are good reasons for the existence of separate parties in the Front even in the conditions of the unified popular social-political organisation. These parties have much work before them in drawing to the Front numerous elements from the circles where they have influence and contact, and in doing so they will help strengthen the Front and hasten the complete moral and political unity of our people, which is the chief guarantee of future success. The new thing for the parties is that now they will develop their activities within the framework of the Front programme and will be obliged to submit to its discipline. The progressive social development of our country is moving not backward, towards a multitude of parties and groupings, but towards the elimination of all remnants of the capitalist system of exploitation, and this will lead to the establishment of a unified political party that will guide the state and society. Our people who have bitter memories of the past will never agree to the leadership of our State and society resembling the swan, crayfish and pike in Krylov's fable, who, despite their efforts could not move the cart, since the swan was pushing upward, the crayfish backward while the pike was diving into the river. But the formation of a united political party of our people calls for hard work. A number of radical changes are necessary to eliminate completely the capitalist system of exploitation and to put an end to the existence of antagonistic classes; it is necessary also to carry out considerable work in the matter of re-educating our people. But all this will be done by the Fatherland Front, the united social-political organisation, which our congress will set up. There are dishonest people who will say that this is totalitarianism, dictatorship by a single party.

Fascism certainly represented a totalitarian system, but as is known that system was imposed on the people from above, by means of terror and violence, and found expression in the unrestricted domination and dictatorship of a handful of big capitalists, financial magnates, businessmen and political adventurers over the vast majority of the people with the aim of plundering and enslaving the people. The Fatherland Front bears no relation whatsoever to such a system. The Front represents the unification of the popular forces, brought about by the people and for the people. Together with the Communist Party, which is the leading party, there are four other parties in the Front—the parties that broke with the capitalist system, that adhered to the progressive principles of the Front and declared themselves for the people and for the country. Expressing the wishes of the people these parties accept the general political discipline and a unified programme that envisages constructive labour, a lasting peace and the building of a just social order which will secure for the working people the wellbeing they deserve. Clearly this is not totalitarianism. This is unified political leadership of the people's republic in the interests of peace, democracy and progress. Internal reaction and hired imperialist agents would like to prevent the creation of a political leadership of this kind, for they are interested in dividing the people. Their slogan is: “Divide and rule!” But the old bourgeois parties have been rejected by our people. Their existence is not, and cannot be, justified. In the new social order they have become not only superfluous but also harmful as the agency of internal and international reaction. The Fatherland Front has been called to rule the country and only the Front will rule in accordance with the expressed will of the people. Naturally, enemies of our people’s republic would like to have their fifth column in the country, which would undermine the basis of the people's democracy. But people who have taken their destinies into their own hands won't stand for any fifth column– the agency of the foreign imperialists, the tools of capitalist concerns and monopolies. I am convinced that all the parties in the Front and the other organisations as well will, after this congress, reorganise their work along new lines, will spare no afford to make the Fatherland Front firm and unshakable, to make it a vast, unanimous, loyal, united and disciplined social-political victorious army of our people. (Applause) *** Carefully and critically analysing the difficult and tortuous path traversed by our people under the leadership of the Fatherland Front we can say with confidence that the worst is behind us. No doubt in future, too, we shall encounter quite a number of difficulties but then difficulties are inevitable, are a concomitant of growth and development. At the same time the conditions and opportunities for overcoming the difficulties, exist. With the organisation of the Fatherland Front into a united, people's social-political organisation, equipped with a new programme, the people of Bulgaria will advance more confidently towards the final triumph of their great cause, regardless of all and any difficulties and obstacles. Our task is rendered much easier thanks to the fact that the people are inspired by, and are ready to learn from the experience of the fraternal Soviet Union, whose people, despite enormous difficulties and enormous sacrifice, have created, under the leadership of the great Bolshevik Party and of its brilliant leader Generalissimo Stalin, a new socialist society and are now confidently marching onward to Communism. (Prolonged applause) Our people have their enemies, but the people are not alone. They have also big and small, true, and unselfish friends. By firmly rallying around the Fatherland Front the people of Bulgaria will steer their social ship of State through the reefs to safe harbour. Long live the indestructible and invincible Fatherland Front! Long live the people's republic of Bulgaria! (All rise, stormy and prolonged applause.) Dimitrov Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Speech on the Chinese Question Delivered 23 July 1936 at the Meeting of the Secretariat of the ECCI First Published:1986 in 'Kommunisticheskii Internatsional i kitaiskaya revolutsiya' p. 263-266 Translated by: Tahir Asghar Source: revolutionarydemocracy.org Transcribed: revolutionarydemocracy.org HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2001 I will make a few comments: we have, on the basis of the information about the situation regarding our forces and the situation of the Party, come out with a comprehensive resolution on the policies of the Chinese Party, its organisation, its leadership, its cadres and its methods of functioning etc. This is what we will be doing at another time, the sooner the better. The Chinese Communist Party in recent years has grown into a Party that has an army, that has weapons and that has accomplished heroic campaigns at the head of its Red Army. This has always been an inspiration and wonder for us. We must admit it unambiguously: I, personally for the last two years, after having returned, have been relating to these with admiration. I have remained under the influence of my fascination and love for the Communist Party of China, but we have not sufficiently critically approached our Chinese Communists, our Chinese comrades. We need here a more critical approach. Everything positive must be highlighted, but the shortcomings and the weaknesses should also be pointed out, so as to help our Chinese comrades overcome these weaknesses, these shortcomings and these negative aspects. The Chinese Communists are good and valiant people and they fight well. But it cannot be said that politically, in the complicated situation that we have in China today, that they have matured and are prepared for the task. I think the critical comments that Com. Wang Ming has made regarding the Secretariat concerning the decisions of the Politbureau, are applicable even in greater measure to Com. Wang Ming himself and also to a number of our Chinese comrades present here. These critical comments must be reflected in the speeches, documents and articles of our Chinese comrades here. The proposals that have been put up we can, of course, by and large, accept. They are correct. But certain corrections are still needed. Some of these proposals could be given to our Chinese comrades for approval and examination in China. The task in China consists now not in the extension of the Soviet regions and the expansion of the Red Army, but it consists in finding possibilities, finding ways and appropriate slogans and appropriate methods for achieving the unity of the predominant majority of the Chinese people against the Japanese aggressors. It is necessary to preserve and strengthen our Red Army as the armed fist. It is necessary to develop our party as the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat and the Chinese people, not only with the aim of expansion of the Soviet regions, of the direct Sovietisation of China and the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution in China. It must be underlined here that the establishment of a national all-Chinese republic, of the national all-China parliament, solution of the agrarian question through such a Parliament can unite the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the radical intelligentsia of China (and this means 90% of the Chinese population, of the Chinese people) on a common platform of the struggle against the alien enemy - the Japanese aggressors. And when we will be talking with the Kuomintang and directly with Chiang Kai-shek, and as we are expecting such talks, then we should somewhat modify and be on top of the conditions that we had in view earlier and which were mentioned by Com. Wang Ming. For example: we Communists and our Red Army and our Soviet regions declare our preparedness to fight against Japanese imperialism toward the establishment of a united, national All-China Democratic Republic on the basis of a universal code of elections. In this struggle the time will come for a mass and organised struggle for Soviet power. Such a situation is apparent in the present conditions in China when we have the Soviet regions, Soviet power and the Red Army. We should make use of it now. These positions have been won by the Chinese revolution. These must be taken advantage of, so as to more effectively fulfil the tasks at this stage of development of the Chinese revolution. Comrades, if we look back at history we can see that nations consolidated and united themselves in the course of bourgeois revolutions. This has benefited the bourgeoisie. And Chiang Kai-shek too now wants to benefit from this, by passing himself off as someone who united China by going on an offensive against the Soviet regions under the flag of national unification and against the division of the country. That the Japanese are on the offensive and have captured Manchuria and North China and are getting ready to move further must serve as a powerful lever for the unification of the Chinese people as such against the Japanese aggressors, contributing thereby to their freedom and national independence. Therefore, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Communists, supported by their own ranks should be the initiators in this struggle. All else must become subordinate to this goal. It is now clear how incorrect is our political stand regarding Nanking, Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. This is a remnant of the past. So to say we are late by two or three years. But better late than never. It is important now to take the correct turn. Chiang Kai-shek personally does not want a unified front. He is afraid of the unified front, but it is necessary to create such conditions in China and such a movement among Chiang Kai-shek's army and in the Kuomintang that Chiang Kai-shek is forced to accept such an anti-Japanese united front, so that Chiang Kai-shek along with other commanders of the Nanking army move further towards a comprehensive anti-Japanese united front. Today the situation is such that Chiang Kai-shek is making full use of this national momentum of the Chinese revolution. It turned out that Chiang Kai-shek managed to organise three-fourths of the nation though he is no champion of unification of China against various military groups, against the division of China and the Chinese people.

It turned out that Chiang Kai-shek managed to organise three-fourths of the nation though he is no champion of unification of China against various military groups, against the division of China and the Chinese people. Tomorrow he is going to throw his forces against our Soviet regions under the slogan of unification of the whole of China against the local aggressors. This needs to be made use of. It would be correct, if our communists turn to the Kuomintang as a party, to the Central Committee of the Kuomintang with a concrete political proposal that our Central command is putting forward to Chiang Kai-shek, to the Commander in Chief of the Nanking forces concrete political proposals. Our comrades must turn to the Association for the Salvation of China and to the organisers of this association. In this manner our comrades must come forward as the initiators, the front fighters and organisers of the popular anti-Japanese front. Then in the course of the struggle for this anti-Japanese united front one must strive to get established the all-Chinese Republic about which we spoke earlier. Then our Soviet regions, which will send their representatives to this parliament, can raise the question of the creation of Soviets as the democratic organ of the all-Chinese republic and will strengthen their position further right until the victory of the working people in China in the struggle for Soviet power. In my opinion, to this we should limit our observations addressed to our Chinese comrades. It is clear, after all, Comrade Wang Ming, that critical observations do not at all mean undermining the influence of the Chinese Communist Party. This critical attitude must benefit the party. From the Chinese party we can demand more than what we can from the Estonian and Latvian (parties). The events in China have a global significance and would have global consequences. I recommend that the proposal of Comrade Wang Ming be accepted as the basis and entrust Comrade Wang Ming and the Chinese comrades to edit this short directive in conjunction with me. Concerning the rest of the matter, it will have to wait the arrival of the other comrades. Dimitrov Works Archive

Obituary of G.M. Dimitrov Originally Published: World News and Views, No. 28, July 1949 Transcription: Marxist-Leninist Translations and Reprints HTML Markup: Brian Reid Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov was born on June 18, 1882, in the town of Radomir, of a proletarian revolutionary family. When he was only 15 years old, the young Dimitrov, working as a compositor in a printshop, joined the revolutionary movement and took an active part in the work of the oldest Bulgarian trade union of printers. In 1902, Dimitrov joined the Bulgarian Workers’ Social Democratic Party. He actively combated revisionism on the side of the revolutionary Marxist wing of Tesnyaki led by Dimitri Blagoyev. The self-sacrificing revolutionary struggle of Dimitrov earned him the warm love of the revolutionary workers of Bulgaria, who, in 1905, elected him secretary of the Alliance of Revolutionary Trade Associations of Bulgaria. In that post he remained right up to 1923, when that alliance was disbanded by the fascists. While leading the struggle of the Bulgarian proletariat, Dimitrov displayed courage and staunchness in the revolutionary struggles, was repeatedly arrested and persecuted. In the September armed uprising of 1923 in Bulgaria he headed the Central Revolutionary Committee, set an example of revolutionary fearlessness, unflinching staunchness and devotion to the cause of the working class. For his leadership of the armed uprising in 1923 the fascist court sentenced Dimitrov in his absence to death. In 1926, after the provocative trial, engineered by the fascists, against the leadership of the Communist Party, Dimitrov was again sentenced to death in his absence. Compelled, in 1923, to emigrate from Bulgaria, Dimitrov led the life of a professional revolutionary. He worked actively in the Executive Committee of the Communist International. In 1933, he was arrested in Berlin for revolutionary activity. During the Leipzig Trial, Dimitrov became the standard-bearer of the struggle against fascism and imperialist war. His heroic conduct in the court, the words of wrath which he flung in the face of the fascists, exposing their infamous provocation in connection with the Reichstag fire, unmasked the fascist provocateurs and roused new millions of workers throughout the world to the struggle against fascism. In 1935, Dimitrov was elected General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. He waged a persistent struggle for the creation and consolidation of the united proletarian and popular front for the struggle against fascism, against the war which the fascist rulers of Germany, Japan and Italy were preparing. He called untiringly on the masses of the working people of all countries to rally around the Communist Parties in order to bar the way to the Fascist aggressors. Dimitrov did great work in the ranks of the international Communist movement in forging the leading cadres of Communist Parties loyal to the great teachings of Marxism-Leninism, to the principles of proletarian internationalism, to the cause of the defense of the interests of the people’s masses in their respective countries. During the Second World War, Georgi Dimitrov called on the Communists to head the national-liberation anti-fascist movement, and tirelessly worked at organizing all patriotic forces for the rout of the fascist invaders. He led the struggle of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) and all Bulgarian patriots who rose in arms against the German-fascist invaders. For his outstanding services in the struggle against fascism he was, in 1945, awarded the Order of Lenin by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. After the defeat of fascist Germany, Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov led the building of the new People’s Democratic Republic of Bulgaria, and laid the foundation for the eternal friendship between the Bulgarian people and the peoples of the Soviet Union. Untiringly working for the consolidation of the united anti-imperialist camp and the rallying of all democratic forces, Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov mercilessly exposed the betrayal of the cause of Socialism and the united anti-imperialist front by Tito’s nationalist clique. In the person of Dimitrov, the working people of the whole world have lost an ardent fighter, who gave all his heroic life to the supreme service of the cause of the working class, the cause of Communism. The death of Dimitrov is a great loss to the whole international working class and Communist movement, to all fighters for lasting peace and a people’s democracy. By his self-sacrificing struggle in the ranks of the working-class movement, by his boundless devotion to the great teachings of Lenin and Stalin, Dimitrov earned the warm love of the working people of the whole world. The life of Dimitrov, loyal comrade-in-arms of Lenin and Stalin, staunch revolutionary and anti-fascist champion, will serve as an inspiring example to all fighters for the cause of peace and democracy, for Communism. Farewell, our dear friend and comrade-in-arms! (Signed) Andreyev, Beria, Bulganin, Voroshilov, Kaganovitch, Kosygin, Malenkov, Mikoyan, Molotov, Ponomarenko, Popov, Pospelov, Stalin, Suslov, Khrushchev, Shvernik, Shkiryatov. Georgi Dimitrov Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Fascism is War Written: July 18, 1936 Source: Dimitrov, Georgi Selected Works, volume 2, Sofia Press 1972, pp. 176-18 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Slightly abridged Two years ago, in August 1935, the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, in analyzing the international Situation and seeking ways and means whereby the working class could carry on the struggle against the offensive of fascism, pointed to the indissoluble connection between the struggle against fascism and the struggle for peace. Fascism is war, declared the Congress. Coming to power against the will and interests of its own countrymen fascism seeks a way out of its growing domestic difficulties in aggression against other countries and peoples, in a their redivision of the globe by unleashing a world war. As far as, fascism is concerned, peace is certain ruin The preservation of international peace renders it possible for the enslaved masses in the fascist countries to gather their forces together and to prepare for the overthrow of the hated fascist dictatorship, and to enable the international proletariat to win time for the establishment of unity tit its ranks, to rally together the supporters of peace, and to establish an insurmountable barrier against the outbreak of war. When the Seventh Congress characterized fascism as the firebrand of war, when it pointed to the growing danger of a new imperialist war and to the need for establishing a powerful united fighting front against fascism, there were very few people even in the labour movement who did not hesitate to accuse us Communists of deliberately ascribing this role to fascism, for purely propagandist purposes and of exaggerating the war danger. Some did this consciously, in the interests of the ruling classes, while others did so out of political shortsightedness. The past two years however, have provided a sufficiently clear demostration of the complete Absurdity of such accusations. Now both the friends and fees of peace are openly speaking of the menace of a new world war which has come upon us. And it would be difficult to find seriousminded people who at all doubt that it is precisely the fascist governments that are foremost in the desire for war. In actual fact, war is already raging in a number of countries. For one year now, both the Italian and the German interventionists have been carrying on a war against the Spanish people before the eyes of the whole world. After having accomplished the seizure of Manchuria, the Japanese fascist militarists are now again attacking the Chinese people and are waging a new war in North China. Manchuria, Ethiopia, Spain, North China - these are stages towards the new great robber war of fascism. These are not isolated acts. There exists a bloc of fascist aggressors and warmongers - Berlin, Rome, Tokyo. The German-Japanese 'anti-Comintern' Pact, an agreement which, as is well known, is of a military nature and to which Mussolini has in fact also linked himself, is already being applied in practice. Under the flag of a struggle against the Communist International, against the 'Red menace', the German, Italian and Japanese aggressors are trying by means of partial wars to seize military-strategic positions, key positions on land and naval routes, and sources of raw materials for their war supplies with a view to the further unleashing of an imperialist war. There is no need to be under any illusions, there is no need to wait for a formal declaration of war, to see that war is now on. As far back as March 1936, Comrade Stalin, in his interview with Roy Howard, said: 'War may break out unexpectedly. Nowadays wars are not declared. They simply break out.' All events of recent years serve as a glaring confirmation of this thesis. Without officially declaring war, Japan started military operations against China and seized Manchuria, Italy attacked the Ethiopian people and seized Ethiopia, and Germany and Italy are waging a war against the Spanish Republic. It is well known that the people have no desire for war, and that a number of non-fascist states are, in the present conditions, interested in maintaining peace. On what, then do the fascist war-makers base their calculations? The entire experience following the robber drive by the Japanese imperialists into Manchuria and by Italian fascism into Ethiopia shows unquestionably that the bandit bloc of the rulers of Germany, Japan and Italy, in order to carry out their military plans in practice, are striving: first of all, to hinder united action by the states interested in the maintenance of peace, secondly, to prevent unity of action by the international labour movement, the establishment of a mighty united world front against fascism and war; thirdly, to carry on undermining diversionist and espionage work in the Soviet Union, which is the foremost bulwark of peace. It is on this chiefly that the fascists base their calculations. And in actual fact the fascist aggressors and warmongers are working strenuously and jointly in these three directions. They are blackmailing the Western European states by threatening their territorial interests. They are preparing an onslaught on the USSR.

They are preparing an onslaught on the USSR. They are making extensive use of the appeasement of the ruling circles of Britain, France and the United States. While making proposals for an agreement on the plundering of the small countries, Spain and China, they are striving in every possible way to win the good graces of the British Tories and a number of Liberal and Labour leaders, so as to wean Britain away, from France and other democratic countries. Holding out a similar lure, the fascists are exerting incredible efforts to come to an agreement with the French reactionaries so as to induce France to renounce the Franco-Soviet pact, thus isolating it from the Soviet Union. The fascist states left the League of Nations to get a free hand for their aggression. They terrorize the weak states by threatening attacks from outside, and by organizing conspiracies and rebellions within these countries. The fascist warmongers make use of traitors, and particularly of the Trotskyites, to carry on disruptive, disorganizing work in the ranks of the labour movement, to disrupt the People's Front in Spain and France. The recent putsh in Barcelona gave a particularly clear demonstration of how the fascists make use of Trotskyist organizations to stab the People's Front in the back. The fascist firebrands also make splendid use of the work of the opponents of international proletarian unity in the ranks, of the Second International and the International Federation of Trade Unions, and assiduously recruit their agents everywhere. On more than one occasion the Soviet Union has upset the war plans of the fascist aggressors by its consistent and resolute peace policy. It can be asserted without any exaggeration that mankind would long ago have been plunged into the most terrible war in history had not the Soviet Union been insistent and unswerving in carrying through its peace policy, had there been no glorious Red Army in existence. But while the fascist aggressor, meet with necessary rebuffs from the Soviet Union, which is acting in the interests not only of the Soviet people but also of the whole of toiling mankind, this cannot be said of the countries of bourgeois democracy. Here, as is being demonstrated with particular clearness by the examples of Spain and China, we meet with the overt and concealed assistance being given to the fascist bloc by the ruling circles of the most important Western non-fascist states. Was it not support for the fascist warmongers when the seizure of Manchuria by, the Japanese militarists was met with appeasement? Was not the lacks of resolute resistance to the bloody campaign of Mussolini against the people of Ethiopia encouragement to the fascist aggressor? Take the entire farce of non-intervention in Spanish affairs, which has already been carried on for a year under the leadership of the 'British government, and the negotiations going on regarding the recognition of Franco as a 'belligerent' - are they not in fact an encouragement to the war being waged by the fascist states against the Spanish Republic Is not the present complacent attitude towards the brazen marauders in North China the most scandalous encouragement to the unbridled Japanese militarists, who wish to enslave the great Chinese people? How can the people of Great Britain, France, the United States and the other non-fascist countries look on calmly at these things? Flow can they put up with this, systematic appeasement and encouragement of fascist aggression, which facilitates the foul work of the fascist firebrands of a new world war? In the face of these things, it becomes still clearer how great is the historic responsibility which lies on those circles and leaders of the Socialist Labour International and the International Federation of Trade Unions which are stubbornly resisting the establishment of united action by the international proletariat, of action by its organization on the basis of a united, co-ordinated policy against the fascist makers of the establishment of a mighty international front of peace. When the Japanese militarists seized Manchuria, there were people claiming to be leading lights in the labour movement who assured the workers in their organizations that Manchuria was a long way off and the Japanese invasion did not touch on the interests of the international labour movement. When Mussolini's fascist hordes crushed the Ethiopian people, these functionaries asserted that the events in Ethiopia were a local colonial conflict and that the international proletariat ought not to interfere. When later on the fascist aggressors brazenly attacked the Spanish Republic and started a war within Europe itself, it was only after many months of tormenting vacillations that the leaders of the Second International agreed to a joint conference with the delegation of the Communist International at Annemasse, and yet not for the purpose of actually bringing about united action between the international workers' organizations, but only to recognize the advisability of joint action 'wherever possible.' Since then the fascist intervention in Spain has been considerably intensified. And now there has been added the new aggression of the Japanese militarists in North China which, according to Japanese plans, is to become a second Manchukuo and the basis for a further amputation of China. Is it not clear that at this moment, when the Spanish people are exerting all their efforts to beat off the onslaught of the fascist interventionists, when the Chinese people are rising up against the Japanese militarists who have attacked them the international workers' organizations should at last unite their efforts and come to the defence of international peace, resolutely and fully prepared for action? The situation is now developing in such a way that to maintain peace throughout the world means first and foremost to bring about the defeat of the fascist invaders of Spain and China. They must be taught a good lesson, they must be really made to feel that the international proletariat and all progressive and civilized mankind will not tolerate their military aggression and acts of robbery, and are ready to do everything to prevent them from fulfilling their plans of igniting the flames of a new world war. Can it be that the Socialist Labour International and the International Federation of Trade Unions will rest content now with general wordy declarations and incantations in favour of peace, while in deeds they shun joint action by all organizations of the international labour movement which is so vitally needed? Surely it is clear that joint action by the international workers' organizations in each separate country and on an international scale is alone capable of mobilizing the forces of progressive mankind for a struggle against war, to bar the road to the warmongers, and also to exert pressure on the official policy of the most important non-fascist states so as to curb fascist aggressors who have thrown off all restraint.

It is impossible to wage a serious struggle for the preservation of world peace unless first and foremost all necessary steps are taken to establish a united front of the working class in each country and united action by the international workers' organizations. It is impossible to carry on a serious fight for peace unless the forces of the labour movement and of the wide masses of the people are mobilized to drive the fascist usurpers out of Spain and China as rapidly as possible. The balance of the forces of war and the forces of peace is not what is was in 1914. Major world-historic changes have taken place since that time. The imperialists succeeded m hurling millions of people into the inferno of a world slaughter under circumstances when neither a powerful proletarian state nor its Red Army existed, when there was no Popular Front in France and 'Spain, when the Chinese people were not in a position to defend their national independence, when the masses of the people had not had the experience of an imperialist war and a great proletarian revolution, when the international working class did not as yet possess such a world organization as the Communist International. The international labour movement has sufficient forces and means at its disposal to bring about the cessation of the intervention of German and Italian fascism in Spain, the onslaught of the Japanese militarists in China, and to secure international peace. This, however, requires that the tremendous forces and means at the disposal of the international labour movement be united and directed towards an effective and unyielding struggle against fascism and war. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The People's Front Published: December 1935 Transcription: Zodiac HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo 1 The policy of the People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, proclaimed by the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, has aroused a mighty echo among the working masses of all countries. The practical realization of this policy in France and Spain has provided clear proof that the People's Front is actually possible and has enhanced its popularity. There is not a single country, at the present time, where the idea of the People's Front does not daily find more and more adherents among all those who cherish democracy and freedom, among all those who advocate peace among nations. The effort to form a People's Front is growing as well in countries where the bourgeois-democratic revolution has still by no means had its last say; in Japan, for instance, where the fascist-feudal military clique, with its rapacious military adventures on Chinese territory and on the frontiers of the great Soviet Union, is thrusting the Japanese people into an abyss of most terrible calamities. And it is growing also in the so-called classic countries of bourgeois democracy, in Great Britain, for instance, where the destinies of nations have been traditionally decided by the two parties of monopoly capital -- the Tory and the Liberal -- which, by their reactionary policy both nationally and internationally, pave the way for the burial of democracy and peace. The tremendous historical significance, the correctness and timeliness of the People's Front policy, are perhaps particularly clearly expressed in the attitude toward this policy shown by the enemies of the proletariat, the enemies of democracy and peace, the fascist war-incendiaries, and the reactionary forces throughout the world. The governments of capitalist countries, bourgeois parties, statesmen and politicians, bourgeois newspapers, have all become seriously alarmed by the decisions of the Congress. The reactionaries of all countries have raised an unparalleled campaign of slander and calumny against the Communist International and against all adherents of the People's Front. In fascist Germany they have even formed a special organization, called the "Anti-Comintern," to carry on propaganda on an international scale against the Communist International and to combat the policy of the People's Front. At the National-Socialist Congress in Nuremberg, Hitler, Goebbels and Rosenberg opened a particularly furious cannonade against the danger of the People's Front, which is menacing the fascist dictatorship, and against democracy in general. While directing the most vehement outbursts against the already existing People's Front in France and Spain, they at the same time thus expressed their alarm and fear of the People's Front movement which is taking shape in Germany itself. The Pope at Rome and their "graces" the bishops in different countries hastened with epistles and sermons, to shield their flock from that "frightful Bolshevik danger," the People's Front. The question of the People's Front is always in the columns of the press in the capitalist countries and is the subject of the most lively discussion. The workers' class enemy quickly sensed and understood what a tremendous danger the People's Front, the unity of all anti-fascist forces, constitutes for him. As long as the proletariat is disunited, as long as it is isolated from the other strata of toilers, the working people in town and country, as long as it has not established proper relationships and collaboration with the other democratic forces in the country, it is not so difficult, as the examples of Italy, Germany and Austria have shown, for the handful of financial and industrial magnates, for the fascist bourgeoisie, to crush the working class movement, to defeat the various strata of the people one by one, and destroy democracy. The fascists have successfully applied the well-known crafty motto -- "divide and rule." But when the scattered proletarian detachments, at the initiative of the Communists, join hands for the struggle against the common enemy, when the working class, marching as a unit, begins to act together with the peasantry, the lower middle classes and all democratic elements, on the basis of the People's Front program, then the offensive of the fascist bourgeoisie is confronted with an insurmountable barrier. A force arises which can offer determined resistance to fascism, prevent it from coming to power in countries of bourgeois democracy and overthrow its barbarous rule where it is already established. As the examples of France and Spain have shown, the establishment of the People's Front signifies a turning point in the relation of forces between the proletariat on the one hand, and the fascist bourgeoisie on the other; to the advantage of millions of the working masses. The People's Front makes it possible for the lower middle classes, the peasantry and the democratic intelligentsia, not only to resist the tutelage and oppression of the clique of finance capital, but also to rise up against it in defense of their vital interests and rights, relying for support on the militant collaboration of the working class nationally and on an international scale. The People's Front offers a way out of the situation which seemed so hopeless to the sections of the lower middle classes, who considered themselves doomed to submission to fascist domination. The People's Front helps the working class to avoid the political isolation toward which the bourgeoisie purposely impels it; it creates the most favorable conditions for the working class to accomplish its historic role, to head the struggle of their people against the small clique of financial magnates, big capitalists and landlords, to be in the vanguard in the uncompleted democratic revolution and in all movements for progress and culture. The class struggle between exploited and exploiters thus receives an immeasurably wider base and a mighty scope. While the split in the ranks of the working class, the absence of unity between them and the other strata of the working people, pave the way to power for fascism, the unity of the proletarian ranks and the formation of the People's Front ensure victory for democracy over fascism, defend peace against fascist incendiaries of war, and in the long run pave the way for the victory of labor over capital. It is difficult to imagine a higher degree of political shortsightedness and absurdity than to contrast the principles of the class struggle with the policy of the People's Front, as some of our overzealous critics "from the Left" do in regard to the decisions of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International.

We frequently observe the characteristic phenomenon that not a few Left Socialists, who have become disillusioned with the Social-Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and are moving away from reformism are frequently inclined to go to the other extreme and become the victims of sectarianism and Leftist excesses. They make the mistake of identifying the policy of the People's Front with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and demand "a pure working-class policy," declaring that the joint struggle of the working class and the democratic sections of the lower middle classes, the peasantry and intelligentsia against fascism constitutes a retreat from the position of the class struggle. But this does not at all mean that the People's Front policy is identical with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie it only shows that we must patiently explain the class meaning of the People's Front policy to the sincere Left Socialists and help them to get rid of their own political shortsightedness, which can only play into the hands of fascism and reaction in general. 2 As was stated at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, the People's Front will be formed in a different way in different countries, depending on the historical social and political peculiarities of each country and the concrete situation existing therein. To imitate' uncritically and transfer mechanically the methods and forms of the People's Front in one country to another can only complicate its formation, expansion and consolidation. However, as experience has shown, it is equally true for the majority of the capitalist countries, that: First, the formation of the People's Front is possible in the actual struggle today against fascism; Second the People's Front will be realized the more rapidly and the sections of the working masses joining it will be the greater, the more determinedly the working class itself acts as one unit, the more quickly its organizations, and in the first place the mass trade unions and the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties, bring about unity of action in the struggle against fascism; Third, the People's Front will spread and strengthen as its program for the defense of the interests of the working people, for the defense of democracy and peace against fascism and the fascist warmongers, is carried out; Fourth, the success of the People's Front is entirely dependent upon the extent to which its ranks are consolidated, and upon the extent to which the masses and organizations which take part in it have undergone political and organizational preparation so as to be ready promptly to repulse every blow aimed by fascism, without waiting for its general offensive. Today, when the Spanish people is engaged in a deadly struggle against the fascist rebels, when fascism is raising its head everywhere in the capitalist countries and, in the first place, in France, Czechoslovakia and Belgium, it is the supreme duty of the working class to hasten in every way the formation and consolidation of the People's Front by establishing united action nationally and on an international scale. It is the duty of Communists to do everything necessary, taking into consideration the conditions in their own countries, to help the working class to fulfill this its historic task. If we are briefly to formulate the most important, immediate tasks which the whole situation today places before the world proletariat, they may be reduced to the following: To exert every effort to help the Spanish people to crush the fascist rebels; Not to allow the People's Front in France to be discredited or disrupted; To hasten by every means the establishment of a world People's Front of struggle against fascism and war. All these tasks are closely linked. The most urgent, though, of these tasks, the very first at the present moment, is that of organizing international aid to the Spanish people for their victory over fascism. The course of development in all the capitalist countries in the near future will depend a great deal upon the outcome of the struggle of the Spanish people against the fascist brigands. The action undertaken by the fascists in Spain has shown once more that fascism is not only the bitterest enemy of the proletariat, the enemy of the Soviet Socialist Republics, but the enemy of every form of liberty, of every democratic country, even if its political and economic regime does not go beyond the bounds of bourgeois society. Fascism means the destruction of all the democratic rights won by the people, the establishment of a kingdom of darkness and ignorance and the destruction of culture; it means nonsensical race theories and the preaching of hatred of man for man, for the purpose of kindling wars of conquest. Death and destruction are being spread today in Spain by the rabble who form the Foreign Legion, by the duped Moroccan troops led by fascist generals, and by the ammunition and military units sent to Spain by the fascist rulers of Germany, Italy and Portugal. The combatants of the Republican army fighting at the walls of Madrid, in Catalonia, in the mountains of Asturias, all over the peninsula, are laying down their lives to defend not only the liberty and independence of Republican Spain, but also the democratic gains of all nations, and the cause of peace against the fascist war incendiaries. The special significance of the Spanish events consists in the fact that they have demonstrated the mighty power of united proletarian action, the power of the People's Front in the struggle against fascism. For it is now quite clear to everybody that if united action had not been achieved between the Communist, Socialist and Anarchist workers in Spain, if a broad fighting front of the Spanish people -- from the Communists to the Left Republicans -- had not been formed, the fascist generals would long ago have established their dictatorship. They would have wreaked bloody vengeance upon the workers and other toilers and upon all democratic elements all over the whole of Spanish territory. They would have doomed the country to an orgy of medieval reaction and inquisition, would have placed it under the heel of German and Italian fascism, would have handed over to them the most important strategic points in the Mediterranean, and have turned Spain into a military base for carrying out their robber war plans. But in Spain the fascist rebels and their inspirers from Berlin and Rome have encountered that force which is barring their way. They have encountered the armed resistance of the People's Front. The Spanish people by their heroic struggle are today demonstrating how democracy is to be defended against fascism.

The victory of the Spanish people is the interest of all who do not want to suffer fascist barbarism in their country. The victory of the Spanish people will be the victory of the whole of world democracy, the victory of progress and culture over fascist reaction, the victory of the peace the People's Front in France and strike a heavy blow at fascism in all countries. The heroic struggle of the Spanish people serves as a striking and convincing warning to the fascist forces of darkness in those countries where they are feverishly preparing for fascist coups d'état, that the time has passed when fascism can make use of disunity in the ranks of the working class and other toilers, when it can catch the people unawares, when it can deceive the politically backward sections of the population and seize state power. It shows that where there are a firm People's Front and international solidarity of action among the working class, it will be impossible to establish fascist rule over a people prepared to defend their freedom and independence. Thus, the cause of democracy and peace in Europe, the struggle against fascism and war in all countries, is linked in a thousand ways with the interests of the People's Front in Spain, whose courageous fighters have taken up arms to defend the Republic and ensure the victory of the Spanish revolution. 3 Everything that has happened during the recent period, and primarily the lessons of the Spanish events, point to the fact that the time has come when we must defend democracy by every means, including the force of arms. These are the lessons that must be learned and well remembered by all workers and other toilers, by all those who do not want to become victims of fascist bondage and savage violence. It is not at all that the supporters of democracy and peace are in general advocates of armed struggle, but that fascism kindles the flames of civil war against the democratic regime of the country, brings about destruction and death, and compels the people to defend their lives, their freedom and independence by taking up arms. It must be understood that it is not a case now of some far distant menace of fascism, but that fascism, which has already set up its terroristic dictatorship in such big countries as Germany and Italy, and is seeking to do the same in Spain, is preparing to crush the working class movement and to destroy democracy in other countries, and that it kindles the flames of world imperialist war. The war undertaken by fascism against the Spanish people cannot be considered as a casual isolated act. No, this war is a link to the chain of the fascist offensive on the international arena. No illusions must be harbored that the war undertaken by fascism against the Spanish people will be the last of its kind. Fascism is preparing to strike at democracy in France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, at the democracy of England, Switzerland, Scandinavia and other countries. Everywhere the fascist reactionaries are feverishly working, from within and without, to prepare, organize and, at a convenient moment, to carry out fascist rebellions and coups d'état. In order to prepare for a new imperialist war, to seize foreign territories and to subject other nations, in order to ensure the unbridled rule of the most reactionary, rapacious elements of finance capital and to Organize a crusade against the Soviet Union, fascism needs to smash the working class movement and destroy European democracy. All adherents of democracy must bear in mind that the fate of anti-fascist democracy in Europe is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the working class, with the establishment of the People's Front. Democracy will inevitably perish under the blows of the fascist offensive, if it does not rely for support on the working class and the broad masses of the working people, if it is not prepared to defend itself against fascism by every means at its disposal. The policy of retreating before fascism, both nationally and on an international scale, brings grist to the mill of fascism; it brings destruction to the nations, it means the end of democracy. This policy is equally harmful for those who retreat before fascism inside the country and those states which retreat before it on the international arena. The fascist rulers of Germany are systematically blackmailing the countries of bourgeois democracy, and the present rulers of those countries succumb to the influence of this blackmail. But it must be realized that the brazen fascists are becoming the more insolent the more concessions are ceded to them, and the less the resistance they meet. The fascists are using their well-tried method of provocation. In Germany they burned the Reichstag and then shouted that the Communists had done it. In Spain they started a rebellion against the parliamentary regime, against the lawful republican government, and then shouted that the People's Front was to blame for the civil war. The fascists put fear into the hearts of the spineless liberals and flabby democrats; while the democratic jobbers fearing for their profits and the ministers, politicians and leaders from the ranks of various liberal and democratic parties who cling to their soft seats, as well as not a few people from the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals, give way to this intimidation and do their utmost to find means of conciliation with fascism. They try to persuade us that such a "middle" policy can be adopted whereby "the wolves would be satisfied and the sheep go unharmed." But concessions will not sate the fascist wolves. This kind of policy will not check them. Actually it only leads to demobilizing the forces and the will of the working masses. The Spanish events provide a particularly vivid example in this respect, too.

The Spanish events provide a particularly vivid example in this respect, too. It is now clear to all that the fascists, and first and foremost the fascists of Germany and Italy who have raised the revolt, with the Spanish generals as their cat's-paws, counted upon the young Spanish Republican government not offering them any serious resistance; they expected that it would not be difficult for them to subject the country and take over its natural wealth and the islands having strategic importance. In resorting to military action in Spain the fascists had before them the examples of the recent past, when their criminal acts had been allowed to go unpunished. The introduction of compulsory military service in Germany, the militarization of the Rhineland, the seizure of Ethiopia by Italy and the earlier seizure of parts of China by Japan, which took place with the connivance of the bourgeois democratic countries and the League of Nations, have whetted the appetites of the fascist bullies and encouraged them to attempt a new robber raid. The fascists would never have dared to kindle the flames of civil war in other countries, to send arms, airplanes, tanks, flotillas of warships and, lastly, army units, had they been promptly and firmly checked. They would have been compelled to retreat if; at the very beginning of the fascist rebellion in Spain, they had encountered the mighty force of the international working class movement marching in a united front, if they had encountered resistance on the part of the bourgeois democratic governments, if these governments had not supported the blockade of the Spanish Republic by their fraudulent policy of non-intervention. We often hear the argument advanced by people who pretend to be adherents of democracy, that the establishment of the People's Front only leads to increased fascist aggression, that it hastens the armed action of fascism. From this they draw the conclusion that if you want to avoid the barbarous rule of fascism, do not form a People's Front, but try to come to terms peacefully with Hitler and Mussolini and your own Hitlers and Mussolinis in each country. But nothing could be more misguiding and harmful for the proletariat and the people in the bourgeois democratic countries than to follow the sheepish wisdom of these woebegone democrats. It amounts to the absurd, stupid, foul moral: "Don't annoy the beast if you don't want it to attack you." And this monstrous moral is being taught to the Social-Democratic workers precisely after the cruel defeat of the working people of Germany and Austria! For in Germany and Austria, as is well known, the leaders of Social-Democracy and the trade unions had absolutely refused to undertake any joint action with the Communists, their excuse being that the united front with the Communist Party would alienate the middle strata from the working class, would strengthen the position and the aggression of fascism, would hasten on its general offensive and lead to fascist victory and the annihilation of democracy. It was as a result of this policy that the German and Austrian people suffered heavy defeats, followed by countless horrors and calamities. On the other hand, we see that the People's Front in France has barred the way against fascism, while it is precisely owing to the People's Front that for five months now the Spanish people have been heroically defending their liberty and independence. In this grave struggle the chances for victory will be the greater the more the Spanish working class is able to maintain to the end the firm unity of the People's Front, the more it is able to subordinate the historically formed differences between the Communists, Socialists and Anarchists, to the greater interests of the people, to the cause of suppressing the fascist rebellion, the more determinedly it resists the attempts at taking dangerous leaps over the inevitable stages of the revolution advocated by certain shortsighted sectarians, light-minded visionaries and Trotskyite provocateurs. Finally, the quicker and more resolute the support afforded to the Spanish people by the world proletariat and the whole of progressive mankind, the sooner will the Spanish people finish with the fascist rebels. An analogy, it is true, is not always proof, but frequently it throws a clearer light on a given situation. We can definitely assert that if; at the time of the Leipzig trial when the sword of brutal Hitler fascism hung over the heads of the accused Communists, the anti-fascists of all countries, and we in court, had adhered to this wiseacre policy of "Don't annoy the beast," German fascism would not then have suffered such a moral and political defeat, the heads of the falsely accused Communists would not have remained on their shoulders, and the "St. Bartholomew Night" prepared by the bloodthirsty fascists for the thousands of prisoners of fascism in the jails and concentration camps would not have been averted. No, the policy of "Don't annoy the beast," is an unworthy policy! It is a policy which under all circumstances is fatal for the working class, for democracy and peace. On the contrary, the fascist beast must be muzzled. It must be confronted by the mighty organized fist of the People's Front. It must be muzzled in iron so as to prevent it from biting. It must be struck at and finished once and for all, in order to save the democratic gains won by the people and safeguard peace. This, of course, does not mean that we should fall prey to the provocations of the fascists, who, while using all means to kindle the flames of civil war inside the country and imperialist war abroad, seek to deceive the masses of the people and create the impression that it is precisely the parties of the People's Front and the states which support peace that lead to civil war and military complications. In the contemporary political history of Europe we have two most important and instructive examples showing different attitudes toward fascism that led to diametrically opposite results. While in Germany the Social-Democratic leaders refused to establish united working class action and, precisely because of this, facilitated the advent of the fascists to power, we have a different example in France. The French proletariat, thanks to the joint action of the Communist and Socialist Parties and the policy of unswerving struggle on the basis of the People's Front against the fascist danger, caused fascism to be effectively repulsed and prevented the fascists from establishing their rule.

The French proletariat, thanks to the joint action of the Communist and Socialist Parties and the policy of unswerving struggle on the basis of the People's Front against the fascist danger, caused fascism to be effectively repulsed and prevented the fascists from establishing their rule. This is the greatest victory of the proletariat and democracy in Europe after the coming of fascism to power in Germany. And the working people of other capitalist countries can and must learn much from the French proletariat. But these successes in France are only the first successes. They must be consolidated; they demand that the offensive against fascism proceed further. Every attempt to discredit and break up the People's Front must meet with the most resolute resistance on the part of all workers, all anti-fascists. The mustering of the fascist forces within the country, the growing fascist aggression in neighboring countries, the Spanish events, which are fraught with lessons to be learned, indicate clearly to the workers and all anti-fascists that they must increase their efforts tenfold in the struggle against fascism, that they must forge an even stronger and more stable united People's Front. There is no ground to doubt that this line will be followed persistently and firmly, as the only correct line in the struggle against growing fascist aggression. But maintaining the People's Front in France does not mean by far that the working class will support the present government at any price. The composition of the government may change, but the People's Front must remain and grow stronger all the time. If for some reason or other the existing government should turn out to be unable to put through the program of the People's Front, if it takes the line of retreat before the enemy at home and abroad, if its policy leads to the discrediting of the People's Front and thus weakens the resistance to the fascist offensive, then the working class, while still further strengthening the bonds of the People's Front, will strive to bring about the substitution of another government for the present one, of a government which will firmly carry out the program of the People's Front, will be capable of dealing with the fascist danger, will safeguard the democratic liberties of the French people and ensure its defense against foreign fascist aggression. Alongside with maintaining and strengthening the People's Front in France, the unfolding of united action among all sections of the English working class against fascism and war deserves special attention. England plays a tremendous role in the whole of the political life of the world. Her position most definitely influences a number of bourgeois democratic countries and the international situation in general. The whole situation today raises with particular force the question of the role of the working class of England nationally and on an international scale. This fact imposes on it particularly important obligations with regard to the struggle against fascism and for the preservation of peace, and also with regard to the task of establishing international unity of the working class movement. The English working class won democratic rights earlier than the working people of other countries. The democratic regime they won has made it possible for them to influence the policies of their country to a greater extent than is the case with the proletariat of a number of other countries. The English workers possess powerful means for the struggle for democracy, to safeguard peace against fascism and, in particular, against the fascist brigands in Spain and the German, Italian and Portuguese interventionists. There is no doubt that the working class of England, with the glorious traditions of the Chartist movement behind it, the proletariat in whose midst the First International of Marx and Engels was established, and which possesses powerful, united trade union organizations, will find in itself sufficient strength and will power to overcome all obstacles on the way to creating a united People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, and to fulfill with honor its international obligations in defense of democracy, culture and peace. 4 The decisive role in the task of establishing a mighty People's Front belongs to the working class. It can and must rally around itself all working people, all the forces of democracy, all anti-fascists. At the present juncture, when we are faced with furious fascist aggression directed, as was particularly clearly demonstrated by the Nuremberg Congress of the bestial German fascists, against every kind of democracy, when everything must be done to save the Spanish democratic republic, when over the world hangs the ominous threat of a new world imperialist war, it is not only impermissible to allow the forces of the proletariat to be divided, but it is impermissible and criminal to allow any slackening in the work of establishing the united front. This slackening only plays into the hands of fascism. It may cause the proletariat and democracy to suffer new heavy blows. The working class must no longer tolerate a situation where, at a time when in Spain the Socialist and Communist workers are fighting and dying together at the front, defending not only the liberty and democracy of the Spanish people but the democracy and culture of the whole of Europe against fascist barbarism, there are to be found leaders of the Second Socialist International who bring all their influence to bear to widen the split in the proletarian ranks. At a time when the fascist rebels in Spain are slaughtering Socialist and Communist workers who are fighting shoulder to shoulder at the front, when they are spreading death and destruction throughout the country, the leadership of the Socialist Inter national persistently refuses to organize aid for the Spanish people jointly with the Communist International. There are a number of countries with Social-Democratic governments or coalition governments in which Social-Democratic ministers, leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties and of the Socialist International, are taking part. But not only do these governments not make common cause with the Soviet Union in its position on the Spanish question, the only position which is in accord with the interests of the Spanish people and with the cause of the defense of democracy and peace, but by the manner in which they act they lend support to the hypocritical policy of non-intervention and actually hinder the cause of effective resistance to the fascist interventionists and murderers of the Spanish people. Of course, the responsibility for this policy, which is most detrimental to the interests of the world proletariat, lies with the Socialist leaders who are carrying it out.

Of course, the responsibility for this policy, which is most detrimental to the interests of the world proletariat, lies with the Socialist leaders who are carrying it out. But it would be against the historical truth if we were to keep silent concerning that share of responsibility which falls upon all leaders and members of the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals. For the leaders speak and act on their behalf, as their representatives. Inasmuch as they allow such a policy to be pursued, they cannot disclaim responsibility for it. They must become cognizant of the common duty history places upon them, together with the Communists, to do everything to bar the way against fascism and to safeguard peace. In the formation and extension of the People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, the greatest significance is attached to the united front of the working class itself in the main capitalist countries, to united action on the part of the Communist and Social-Democratic parties, as well as the trade unions of different political tendencies and, on the international arena, to joint action of the Communist and Socialist and Amsterdam International. All obstacles in the way of this united action must be removed as rapidly as possible. To this end the Communist Parties and all supporters of proletarian unity and the People's Front in the ranks of the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals have a tremendous amount of intensive daily activity ahead of them. The Seventh Congress of the Communist International was fully aware of the fact that it is no simple task to put an end to the split in the ranks of the working class. All that the enemies of the working class, their agents and henchmen have done over the course of long decades for the purpose of dividing the forces of the working people cannot be eliminated with a wave of the hand and by mere wishes. Our whole experience since the congress has shown still more clearly that the road to united action on the part of the working class nationally and on an international scale is far from being a straight, smooth, paved road. It is a pretty hard, zigzag road, often thorny and steep. Open and covert enemies of unity never cease to throw up different kinds of obstacles and barriers along that road. Every step has to be taken after great effort, by stubborn work and struggle. There are the misguided ones who must have things explained to them patiently, so that they may become convinced. There are the waverers and those of little faith who have to be urged on all the time. There are saboteurs and double-dealers who must be ruthlessly exposed. There is a persistent struggle to be waged against the cunning sophists, the crafty politicians and practiced demagogues, who do their utmost to persuade the rank and file, the politically inexperienced workers, that two times two are not four, but three, that the united front of the working class does not increase their power, but only leads to increased fascist aggression. And at the same time it is necessary to be on guard against falling prey to the provocative maneuvers of the enemies of unity, but untiringly to extend a brotherly hand to all organizations of the working people, inviting them to joint struggle even when they have avowed opponents of unity at their head. For every Communist, every class-conscious worker, must not forget for a minute that the opponents of unity of the international proletariat would be extremely gratified if, in the face of their sabotage and provocation, the Communists themselves would give up the struggle for unity and refrain from consistently carrying out the People's Front policy. This would only make it easier for these leaders to carry on in their role as splitters and would save them for the time being from the severe verdict of the proletariat and of history. We must know how to carry on an unabated, ideological struggle against reformism and other anti-Marxist tendencies in the ranks of the working class movement, and at the same time fight persistently for the establishment of the united People's Front and carefully avoid any disruption of united action in the daily struggle against fascism and war. Twenty-two years ago, on the eve of the world imperialist war, when he was gathering together the forces of the working class for the coming struggle for socialism, the great Lenin spoke of the tremendous importance of unity in the ranks of the proletariat: The workers do need unity. And the thing that must be understood above all else is that, apart from the workers themselves, no one will "give" them unity, no one is in a position to help their unity. Unity cannot be "promised"-that would be an empty boast, self-deception; unity cannot be "created" out of "agreement" between little groups of intellectuals -- this is an error of the saddest, most naive and ignorant type. Unity must be won, and only by the workers themselves; the class-conscious workers themselves are capable of achieving this by stubborn and persistent work. Nothing is easier than to write the word "unity" in letters a yard high, to promise unity, to "proclaim" oneself an adherent of unity. But in reality, unity can only be advanced by work and the organization of the advanced workers, of all class-conscious workers. This is not easy.

This is not easy. It requires work, persistence, the rallying together of all class-conscious workers. But without such work there is no use in talking of the unity of the workers.[V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 20:319] These remarkable words of Lenin are particularly valuable and instructive for the working class of all capitalist countries at the present period. 5 The whole course of events since the Seventh Congress of the Communist International provides indisputable confirmation of the vital necessity of the earliest possible realization of its historic slogans regarding working class unity and the People's Front of struggle against the worst enemy of mankind -- fascism. The Communist International and the Communist Parties of the various countries, backed by the masses of the working people, will not cease for one moment to exert all their power in the fight to bring about this unity. They will not fall prey to any provocation whatsoever directed toward widening the split in the ranks of the working class and breaking up the People's Front. And despite the opposition of the saboteurs in the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals, the world proletariat will bring about its militant unity. In the struggle against fascism and war, not empty words, not platonic wishes, but action is needed. To achieve this action it is necessary to bring about the unification of all the forces of the working class and to carry out unswervingly the policy of the People's Front. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Budapest Resolution First Published: 1911 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 60, October 3rd. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 31-35 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 The International Trade Union Conference in Budapest will remain memorable for the workers in Bulgaria, because, as is known, it finally cleared the deck for a genuine repreof the Bulgarian proletariat in the Trade Unions International, and for its complete merger with the life and struggles of the workers in other countries. For seven whole years it was not the fighting Bulgarian proletariat that was represented in the International, but the centre management of semi-existent rival trade unions which, owing to their anti-worker activity, were always outside the pale of the international workers' movement. During this long period the right-wing socialist politiand careerists most unscrupulously misused the prestige and funds of the Trade Unions International in interand for aims that were utterly alien to the proletariat and which exposed the International. For a few strikes, which happened to be headed by them, they wrested from the international proletariat some 33,000 leva, half of which sum vanished without a trace in the pockets of various political loafers. Moreover, these right-wing socialist politicians and careerists exploited these strikes, for which international aid was sent, to further their petty politics and gross career which was particularly true of the general railwaystrike in 19061) and of the strike of the Eastern railin 1908.2) The former strike, as is known, was turned into a lever in the hands of the then 'patriotic' bloc,3) to overthrow the Stambolovist Government. The Democratic Party, which took over the government, made wide use of this, of course; many right-wing socialist careerists also won, as they man to get well-paid jobs, and 'special missions' under the beneficial wing of 'democracy'; the bureaucratic elements in the railways got big raises, while the mass of the railwaymen, who shouldered the vast burdens and adversities of the prolonged strike, was basely tricked. The heroic strike of the Eastern railwaymen was sold out by these right-wing socialist politicians to the demogovernment, thanks to which the latter had no trouble in seizing the Eastern railway lines and in preparing the formal grounds necessary for proclaiming 'independence'.4) At the very moment when the entire bourgeoisie, headed by its monarch, now adorned with a royal title, exulted at what had been accomplished, when the corrupt were writing boring articles and making grandiloquent speeches, to prove that the seizure of the Eastern Railways by the government was the realization of a 'socialist principle' - 400 Eastern railwaymen, together with their families, were fired and thrown into the throes of starvation and misery! In the face of these and a whole series of other irrefutestablished shameful facts, made public by our delegation at the Budapest Conference of the International, there was nothing more natural and imperative for the latter than to throw the right-wing socialist trade union centre out of the Trade Unions International. Nor could the Conference have acted otherwise. It was bound to do this. The honour of the International had to be saved, an end had to be put to the vulgar misuse of its prestige and funds by a political clique under the guise of some kind of a 'trade union centre' ; the doors of the International had to be flung open to the genuine trade union centre of the Bulgarian proletariat, to thrust its liberating movement forward and to deal a mortal blow to the separatist endeavours to form and suprival trade unions, which could solely serve the interof the Bulgarian bourgeoisie. And the Budapest International Conference, to the honof the International and the good fortune of the Bulgarian workers, did this - it should be stressed - unanimously and without any hesitation. This is the true and profound meaning of the resolution on the 'Bulgarian question' voted in Budapest. Although this resolution is imbued with great tact and international courtesy, and although it has a most seemly form, its core nevertheless remains the indisputable fact that the rightsocialist trade union centre was kicked out of the International as unworthy of being in its midst, and that the deck was cleared for the final entry of our trade union, which undoubtedly all delegates to the Conference, familiar with matters in Bulgaria, considered as the sole representative of the Bulgarian proletariat. The exertions of the politicians around the Workers' Struggle and the supermen of Napred to give another interpretation to the said Budapest resolution, clinging only to its flexible form, and to fragmentary foreign press comon it, will remain fruitless. Their reasoning today that the right-wing socialist centre was not thrown out of the International but merely temporarily suspended, so as to facilitate the merger of the two trade union centres in Bulgaria, can serve as a consolation to the few incorrinaive persons of the rival trade unions. However, they will not mislead a single serious worker, because actually the matter is perfectly clear. It does not require much intelligence to grasp that if the Conference looked at the situation in Bulgaria the way our politicians and supermen do, if it desired a 'merger' such as they keep whining about, there would be no need whatever to have the right-wing socialist trade union cen'suspended' from the International. On the contrary, such a 'merger' would have stood much better chances if the right-wing socialist centre had remained in the International and the Conference had told us: you want to enter the General Trade Unions International - very well! We do not object. Merge with the trade union centre from Bulgaria, which joined us seven years ago, and by virtue of this fact you, too, will be in the International. If you do not wish to do this, then you will remain outside the infamily of the proletariat. We know that this is precisely what the Conference did in the case of America.

The new American trade union centre was frankly and categorically told that, if it wanted to he in the International, it should join the old American centre5) (known as Gompers' American Federation of Labour), which has belonged to the International Trade Union Secresince the Paris Conference (1909).6) Why did not the Budapest Conference 'temporarily suspend' the old Americentre, too, so as thereby to facilitate and accelerate the 'merger' of the two federations in America? Can one believe that the tried and experienced trade union and social-democratic militants, who were in session in Budapest, did not know what they were doing? Though they are thousands of times more modest than the braggarts around the Workers' Struggle and Napred, they had enough sense and brains to realize that there was absolutely no contradiction and no inconsistency in their two different decisions concerning the dispute on Bulgaria and that on America. That is why when Jouhaux7), the Secretary of the French Confederation of Labour,8) who had certain sympathies for the new American centre, stated his regret, after the reson the 'Bulgarian question' had been voted that the Conference had not taken the same decision on the American case, he was quietly told that the two cases differed greatly, and hence two quite different decisions had been taken. And indeed, whereas in the old American Federation of Labour the Conference saw a real centre of the American proletariat, which had to be in the International, on the con it had good grounds to look upon the right-wing socialist trade union centre as a fictitious trade union centre, which only shamed the International, misusing its prestige, despoiling its funds and obstructing the real merger of the Bulgarian proletariat by its international relations. To facilitate the unity of the trade union movement in America, the Budapest International Conference rejected the new American centre and left the old federation in the International. To achieve the same unity in Bulgaria, it threw the right-wing socialist trade union centre out of the International and opened its doors to our trade union. So today we are gratified to note that the Budapest resolution on the 'Bulgarian question' has already given beneficent result for the unity of the proletariat in our country and for the complete disintegration of the rival trade unions rejected by the International. But more about this in the following issue. NOTES 1) On December 20, 1906, the railwaymen spontaneously went on strike, the biggest until then in the annals of Bulgaria. It was preceded by a petition to the National Assembly, signed by more than 3,000 workers and employees, but Prime Minister Dimiter Petkov refused to receive the delegation. Instead, the Government hastened to pass two laws, the one forbidding state workers to strike, and the other depriving them of their pension in case they take part in strikes, as well as of the right to organize in trade unions and to publish their own newspapers. The bourgeois opposition tried to take advantage of the 42-day strike to overthrow the Petkov Government. Railwaymen's Trade Union under the guidance of the Party joined the strike but did not head it, confining itself to publishing a leaflet in which it exposed the demagogical policy of the bourgeois opposition parties. 2) The plight of the railwaymen on the Eastern Company's Belovo-Plovdiv-Svilengrad-Istanbul line, most of whom were foreigners, set off a general strike both in Turkey and, almost simultaneously in Bulgaria (September 5, 1908). The strikers demanded higher wages, shorter working hours and regulated relations with the management of the company. 3) Early in 1907, the bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties in opposition: the Populists, Tsankovists, Democrats, Radicals and Right-Wing Socialists formed the 'Patriotic Bloc', a coalition against the National-Liberal Party (Stambolov's followers). Masking its factional aspirations, it pretended to fight against the 'personal regime', but at the end of May 1907, when the position of the National Liberals became shakey and Ferdinand showed an inclination to call to power a party of the Bloc, it disintegrated. 4) Taking advantage of the crisis in Turkey, following the Young Turk coup d'etat, the Government of the Democrats proclaimed Bulgaria an independent kingdom on September 22, 1908, and awarded Prince Ferdinand the title of 'King of the Bulgarians'. In 1911 the Fifth Grand National Assembly was called to amend the Constitution; it voted an amendment to Art. 17, granting the king the right to conclude secret political agreements without consulting the national assembly. 5) The American Federation of Labour (AFL), founded in 1881, comprising mainly the workers' aristocracy under a mercenary clique of reactionary leaders, such as Gompers up to 1925 (whom Lenin compared to Zubatov), Green and Carey, adopted a hostile attitude to the Russian Revolution. Refusing to join the World Trade Union Federation, it is actively working to split the world trade union movement. 6) At the International Trade Union Conference in Paris (August 17-18, 1909) the delegate of the Bulgarian trade union participated with a deliberative vote, as the union had not yet established official relations with the International Secretariat. In connexion with the central question discussed at the conference, the Arbitrary Measures of the Prussian Government against Foreign Workers, it was decided that a joint campaign be launched by the International Trade Union Secretariat and the International Socialist Bureau. The American and British delegates proposed that measures be taken against the passing of blacklegs from one country into another. The attention of the Secretariat was drawn to the fact that it had to contact the Russian trade unions, which at that time were subjected to hard reprisals by the tsarist Government. A cable was received at the conference from the workers on strike at the Kostenets Match Factory, asking the international Secretariat to do all that was within its power to boycott the sale of Bulgarian matches to other states. 7) Jouhaux, L�on (born in 1878), leader of the French reformist trade union movement, one of the foremost leaders of the Amsterdam Trade Unions International.

7) Jouhaux, L�on (born in 1878), leader of the French reformist trade union movement, one of the foremost leaders of the Amsterdam Trade Unions International. Prior to the First World War he was an anarchist anti-militarist, but then became an outspoken advocate of 'civil peace'. Lenin called him one of the most disgusting social conciliators. Jouhaux tried to split the French Confederation of Labour but failed: he organized the 'Force ouvri�re', a reformist trade union organization. 8) The Confederation Generale de Travail (CGT) was from 1895 to 1921 the leading trade union centre in France. During and after the First World War it advocated conciliation with capitalism, which at the end of 1921 led to a split and to the expulsion of the revolutionary' elements who later established the Confederation General de Tray-ail (unitaire), while the former CGT became the main prop of the Amsteram International. At first the anarchist trade unionists tried to capture the CGTU, but in 1924 they left it, realizing that most of the trade union members stood for revolutionary tactics and for the principles of the Trade Unions International (Profintern). Today the CGT is a member of the World Trade Union Federation and takes an active part in the fight for peace. Its daily paper is 'La vie ouvri�re'. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Against Military Credits Shorthand notes 17th National Assembly November 19, 1914, pp. 483-486. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 40-48 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 Gentlemen! During previous votes on military credits, our parliamentary group has had occasion to state its reasons for voting against such credits. I do not intend now to go into these basic reasons again, as they are already known to the members of Parliament. But it is my duty, on behalf of our group, to draw your attention to a major and special reason which prompts us firmly to oppose the new military credit of 6,050,000 leva. We look upon all the funds now being voted for military purposes as a means of pursuing a policy tending to carve up and seize the Balkans. This policy was most clearly defined here in the reply to the speech from the throne by the majority, as well as by all the parliamentary groups of the opposition except ours. At that time it boiled down to the following: Bulgaria should under no circumstances enter into an agreement with the other Balkan states, as this was considered impossible and utopian under the present conditions; and Bulgaria should start negotiations with both groups of great powers in order to secure its independence and integrity and eventually to attain its national ideals. Well, gentlemen national representatives, we consider this policy which, but for differences in shade, is shared by the majority of the house and the bourgeois opposition parties in parliament, as fatal to our nation; hence any means into this policy cannot be approved here, in parliament, by the representatives of the people's masses and of the working class. We are against this military credit and we think that the parliament, if it really represented the interests of the Bulgarian people, and not those of a handful of privileged gentlemen who rule and dominate the country, if in its views it expressed the interests of that people, should not approve the spending of a single penny for military purposes until the present government, or a future government that might take its place, adopts the only salutary policy of an understanding among the Balkan states, of forming a Balkan federation. We still consider the realization of such a policy, as we have stressed here time and again as possible... Dr. K. Provadaliev: Are you serious? G. Dimitrov:... as we have always done, so today we quite seriously recommend to the Bulgarian Parliament and to the present government this only salutary policy. This is why it is my duty to affirm here that we cannot cast our vote in favour that parliament, if it does not want to betray the interests of the Bulgarian people, should not vote any credits for military purposes until the time when an indeand free Balkan policy, that would at the same be a Bulgarian policy, is adopted. In the second place, gentlemen national representatives, you will allow us to differ as to the necessity at this juncture of an extraordinary military credit, much of which would go to maintain reserve troops. For, in spite of the present situation in Bulgaria and the Balkans, we are convinced - on the basis of sufficient data which are probably not unknown to many of the gentlemen national representatives and to the present government - that the calling up of the reserves, of those three series of six levies, is not dictated by any present necessity of preserving the national independence of our country, but that it is, if I may say so, a rehearsal, a partial mobilization. After the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, after the wounds which they inflicted, after the readiness of the masses to fight has been completely exhausted, it is now deemed necessary to sound out public opinion, to test inhowfar the readiness of the masses has been re-awakened. The military authorities themselves do not conceal the fact that the main reason for calling up these levies is precisely the sounding out and testing of public opinion and, on the other hand, the forming of a martial spirit among the masses which may tomorrow have to be called to arms in case of a general mobilization. Well, we feel that the reserves ought not to have been called up, that this is not dictated by considerations of national defence but by quite different motifs and, consequently, that the expenditure it entails might have been avoided. We are not prepared to sacrifice a single penny, or a single drop of blood for a policy that leads not to safeguarding Bulgaria's freedom and independence, but to its ruin. This is our main idea and our guiding principle. This credit, which you will probably vote, met with approval on this side, too (Pointing to the left). The objections raised there are purely formal in character, and concern only the system of credits outside the budget, they are not objections of principle, for you may rightly tell those on the left that they, too, have spent considerable sums for military purposes in the same way, that this was not invented by the Liberal Government, but is an old system which is likely to continue in existence for years to come, in spite of everything that might be said to the contrary, if not as long as the bourgeois system prevails. Because the Bulgarian bourgeoisie ruling the country will never have the courage to come out openly before the masses, and say: 'We need so many millions for our war policy, for military purposes,' and to provide for the exact sum in the budget, but it will always try to hide it and throw dust in the eyes of the destitute masses who, if they are interested in the budget, will discover an outlay of only 50 million leva, whereas a correct estimate would show the sum to be not 50, but 150 to 200 million a year. Well, gentlemen, since none of the wings reject the credit in principle, obviously it will be voted. But allow me to ask what the present government, which hastens with credits outside the budget, especially for military purposes, has done, what you, gentlemen of the major who sanction with your vote the various measures of the government, propose to do, so as to guarantee the existence of the thousands of families the heads of which have been called up for a three-week training. Surely you are not unaware of the fact that a great calamity has befallen the country, due to the calling up of the reserves of several levies.

Ninety per cent of these people are workers, poor peasants and farmers; they have most of them left their families without a single penny, and that while there is a social crisis; they have no stocks, no savings, they had no way of saving and, consequently, their families are now starving, suffering from the harsh winter. Prime Minister Dr. V. Radoslavov: Who is starving? G. Dimitrov: The state has not done anything for them. Minister P. Peshev: The state is doing all that's necessary. Don't talk like a demagogue! G. Dimitrov: Sir! We are not demagogues, we are just speaking the plain truth which you can check yourself any Minister P. Peshev: Our state has not let its people go hungry. G. Dimitrov: All right, then, if you do not want those workers' families in our country to be destitute, this is what you should have done: before introducing this bill for credits outside the budget, you should have introduced a bill to guarantee the relief of families living in distress. This you didn't do, and yet you insist that the state has done everything necessary. The state has done nothing in this respect... . Minister P. Peshev: It won't forsake them. G. Dimitrov:... And you are still trying to say that people aren't starving. Let's face it, gentlemen, they are! From the right wing and right centre: Come, come! This is not true. G. Dimitrov: You have enough to eat with plenty to spare, and that's why you won't believe those that are hungry (Protests from the right). Well then, gentlemen, if the Government does not introduce such a bill, why didn't the committee of the house come to an agreement with the Government to put on the agenda the bill introduced for the purpose by our parliamentary group as early as the last session and which we re-introduced at the beginning of the present session - a bill that concerns the relief of poor families during mobilization, which could be extended to include relief of workers' families living in poverty due to their men being called up for a three-week training, which incidentally is a partial mobilization in itself? This had not been done either. You know, moreover, that the crisis now existing in this country affects most those who have no property - this at least none of you will try to deny - because there is no social crisis, no economic crisis for the gentlemen who dispose of much capital, for those who keep on pocketing interests no matter what happens. It's the have-nots who bear the brunt of the crisis. Now, gentlemen, so many industrial enterprises have closed down, there is a general economic stagnation and mass unemployment - the Minister of Industry and Labour here could tell you this, as he has a special report on unemployment from the workers' organizations; today over 30,000 men cannot find work anywhere in the country - and they have families - this means that more than 100,000 people' have no means of subsistence, no bread, no sustenance. A bill has been drafted to provide for them, but this bill is not being put on the agenda. The government is doing nothing about it. People are starving while you are going to vote with both hands for new extraordinary credits for military purposes (Protests from the right wing and right centre). Gentlemen! I want to draw your attention to this glaring contradiction, this inconsistency and cruelty shown by the present state, represented by you, by the Government and the majority of the house. S. Kalenderov: Cruelty, indeed. G. Dimitrov: Yes, unprecedented cruelty! Gentlemen! A few minutes ago Mr. Koznichki, in order to persuade us that we too should vote for the credits outside the budget, cited the example of other nations: he said that that was what had been done in Germany, Austria and in all the other belligerent nations. The analogy he drew was, however, not exact, since they are fighting there, while we here are not. V. Koznichki: I was speaking about the non-belligerent countries too, about the neutral ones. G. Dimitrov: But for his analogy to have been correct, Mr. Koznichki ought to have told us what they are doing about the destitute workers' masses in countries where bills for credits outside the budget have really been passed due to the war. Minister D. Petkov: Where they are fighting! G. Dimitrov: You, gentlemen, are not prepared to grant a single penny to the working class, to the destitute masses, whom tomorrow you will be calling to arms, to fight not for themselves, but for you again. From the right wing and right centre: Hear, hear! G. Dimitrov:... for your policy and your national ideals, under the guise of your own selfish, capitalist in Minister P. Peshev: This is outrageous! G. Dimitrov: I should like to tell Mr. Peshev that this is not outrageous, but the plain truth. Minister P. Peshev: This is the limit! It's a scandal! The chairman ought not to let you speak like that! This is instigation, demagogy! How dare you instigate? V. Kolarov: Hunger and poverty are a fact. Minister P. Peshev: Don't talk like demagogue, about a national problem. This is a wicked shame!

This is a wicked shame! P. Genadiev (to the extreme left) : You are rousing the people to rebellion. D. Blagoev: You are rousing it. Minister P. Peshev: (to Mr. Dimitrov): Hold your tongue! G. Dimitrov: I should beg the Minister of Education to keep calm. Minister P. Peshev: Hold your tongue! G. Dimitrov: Sir! We know what we are talking about. Minister P. Peshev: No, you don't. G. Dimitrov: What we have said we can prove with documents. Minister P. Peshev: You don't seem to realize what the consequences of your words can be. G. Dimitrov: Don't let us rake up old accounts now. From the right wing: A-ha! S. Kalenderov: You don't know what you are talking about. Chairman: Mr. Dimitrov! Stick to the point or I shall ask you to leave the floor. D. Blagoev: Mr. Chairman, you have no right to tell him what he ought to say. >We protest against this outrage. P. Genadiev: Mr. Blagoev! You forget that the calling up of reserves is for the good of your country. You forget it at your age. D. Blagoev: You there, keep quite! The Chairman: I call on Mr. Dimitrov to keep to the subject. Our patience is exhausted. Else, according to the rules, I shall have to withdraw his permission to speak. G. Dimitrov: Gentlemen! If you wished and if you had the patience to hear me out instead of losing your tempers.. . S. Kalenderov: How can we stand this? G. Dimitrov: . . . I could point out to you here a dozen of patriots, who have robbed Bulgaria and for whose sake the Balkan Wars were waged. They are both here (Pointing to the right) and there (Pointing to the left). (Loud protests and thumping of feet from the right). M. Nichov: Point them out, tell us who they are! G. Dimitrov: As you know, a parliamentary inquiry was instituted which has found out many and is going to find out more.. . M. Nichov: Go on, tell us who they are! G. Dimitrov: ...scores and hundreds of self-styled Bulgarian patriots, both there (Pointing to the right) and here (Pointing to the left). Someone from the right: There are none here. T. Loukanov: Look at Mr. Gendovich, he is a great patriot, the good man! Why do you say there are none? The Chairman: Mr. Dimitrov! If you don't keep to the subject and continue to irritate the national representa I shall withdraw your permission to speak. G. Dimitrov: You have no right to do it, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman. Let me finish. The Chairman: We have no time for nonsense and illattacks here. G. Dimitrov: I protest: The chairman has no right to say who is talking sense and who is talking nonsense. The Chairman: I shall demand that you leave the floor. D. Blagoev: How can you do this? It would be quite arbitrary! The Chairman: He should keep to his subject. He should not make light with the National Assembly. D. Blagoev: You don't like it, because you won't hear the bitter truth. The Chairman: Mr. Dimitrov! Keep to your subject. Don't compel me to make you leave the floor! G. Dimitrov: Mr. Chairman would not have been offended and he would not have reprimanded me if, say, like Mr. Grigor Vassilev, I had sung the praise of our Bulgarian army and asked for an increase of military credits. But because I come out as a representative of a party which cannot share this view and is openly against it, in order to speak against the credits, all of you start arguing and want me to leave the floor. This is not consistent with the prinof parliamentarism, it is most unprincipled of you who like to boast of your parliamentary principles. Let me finish now. I wanted, gentlemen, to draw your attention to the fact that, while the voting of extraordinary credits for military purposes is being rushed, absolutely nothing is being done - and this is the truth - to guarantee the lives of Bulgarian families in distress. This was my whole point. S. Kalenderov: Do you suggest that these sums be included in the credit now discussed? G. Dimitrov: You find the means for introducing so many credits outside the budget, and when it comes to social re you find only words. T. Loukanov: That's how it will be, of course, when a budget of 60 million is submitted and, at the same time, milcredits are asked for 200 million leva. G. Dimitrov: Millions upon millions are voted for military credits, while for social legislation and labour protecthere remains only what was said in the speech from the throne and the promises of the cabinet. Well then, gentle we are here to tell you that the working class, the broad masses, part of whom have elected some of you, canbe solidary with such a policy. And when our government declares that the people approve of this policy, that they give their tacit consent to this policy, the Government should knew, and you, gentlemen, should know that the people, who are suffering in poverty and distress, and with whose money you are building up a military organization, in order to use it as an instrument, not in defence of the nation.... S. Kalenderov: In defence of what then? G. Dimitrov: ...but, consciously or unconsciously, for the ruin of our national freedom and independence, that the people will not support you, that they are against it and, on their behalf, we resolutely oppose the policy pursued here, which is directed against the nation's freedom and in (Applause on the extreme left). Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Third Anniversary of the Russian Revolution First Published: 1920 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 100, November 3; Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 80-83; Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo; Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003. On November 7, 1917 (October 25 old style) the Russian workers and peasants, led by the Bolshevik Party, overthrew the bourgeois coalition government established after the February Revolution and transferred all power over vast and multi-million Russia to the Soviets of Workers and Peasants. This was the first victory of the international revolutionary proletariat over capitalism and imperialism, the beginning of the world-wide revolution. This great exploit of the Russian proletariat was met by the enemies of the Revolution both inside Russia and in all the other countries with loud prophecies to the effect that the power of the Soviets would not be able to last more than a few weeks, that it was bound to collapse, mainly because the simple workers and peasants would not be able to cope with the extremely complex economic and administrative problems in so vast a country as Russia. Soon, however, the world imperialists and their tools – from the extreme conservatives to the most leftist socialist traitors – had a big disappointment in store for them. Despite the tremendous internal and external obstacles, the Soviet regime, far from heading for a fall, was growing stronger day after day, boldly introducing radical changes and proceeding with the construction of a Communist system in the country. Thereupon the imperialists of the Entente resorted to military intervention against the free and self-governing Russian people by financing the counter-revolutionary armies of Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin and organizing an economic blockade of Soviet Russia. The imperialists were exultant, expecting the early destruction of this nest of the world proletarian revolution which was so dangerous for them. Their agents and their lavishly subsidized press were proclaiming to the whole world the forthcoming erasing of Bolshevik Russia from the face of the earth. Difficult and critical months set in for the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, months of privations, bloodshed and death. But the Russian workers and peascreated their glorious revolutionary Red Army, an army such as the world had never seen before, which realized that it was fighting not only to defend its own socialist homeland from the imperialist beasts of prey, but also to clear the way for the complete liberation of all working people in the world. This Red Army swept away and annihilated the counter-revolutionary hordes of Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin. Yet precisely at the moment when, after this brilliant victory, Soviet Russia was transforming its Red Army into an army of labour and was preparing to devote itself wholeheartedly to the process of internal reorganization and to the building of the new system, the imperialists stabthe Russian people in the back, sending against it the Polish landlords' army, organized and well equipped by the Entente.[1] But even this long-planned and painstakingly prepared heinous attack was repelled by the heroic Red Army and terminated not in the collapse of the Soviet regime, as the imperialists had hoped, but in peace between Poland and Soviet Russia. The peace treaty signed with Poland now enables SoRussia to cope, once and for all, with the last counterrevolutionary army on Russian soil – Baron Wrangel's army, which gravely threatened Southern Russia and is now suffering the blows of the valiant Russian workers and peasants. Three whole years have passed in incessant and bloody struggles with the imperialist counter-revolution. It should be stressed again and again that the Russian trade unions have played an important role in this respect. After the 1917 October Revolution when all the power passed into the hands of the Workers' and Peasants' Soviets, the trade unions ceased to be organizations fighting against capitalist exploitation, which was dealt a mortal blow by the proletarian revolution. They turned into active collaborators of the Soviet regime, into a staunch support of the proletarian dictatorship. Not only did the Russian trade unions devote all their efforts to the struggle against economic ruin, helping to carry out the socialization of industry, to restore the distransport system and to increase labour productivity to the maximum, but they also took – and continue to take – a most active part in the defeat of the counterand in the struggle to repel the offensives of the imperialist counter-revolutionary armies. They suffered thousands of casualties on the battlefields, but they spared no effort to supply the Red Army with everything that was needed for victory. Now that we are celebrating the third anniversary of the Great Russian Revolution, we can venture to say that its cause would have been a lost cause were it not for the admirable contribution of the trade unions. Devoting all their forces to the proletarian revolution, the Russian trade unions did not, however, shut themselves into their national frontiers. Deeply umbued with the ideas of communism, they felt it their duty to take the lead in the international revolutionary rallying of the trade union movement in all countries under the banner of the Third Communist International and in the name of the Communist revolution and of the world-wide proletarian dictatorship. It was on the initiative of the Russian trade unions that an International Trade Union Council was set up as the basis for a Red Trade Union International, opposed to the treacherous yellow Amsterdam Trade Union Federation; day after day the International Trade Union Council is rallying greater masses of organized workers in all countries. It was recently joined by the minority of the Confederation of Labour in France, and in the near future this minority will grow into an overwhelming majority. The revolutionary working class movements in Italy and Great Britain are rapidly drawing the trade unions in their countries closer to the Red Trade Union International. The general revolutionary situation throughout Europe helps to extricate the mass trade unions from the influence of the old treacherous leaders and of the Amsterdam Federation and to enlist them into the ranks of the international revolutionary proletarian front. The trade unions in the Balkan and Danubian countries have already joined the International Trade Union Council without any reservations and they are uniting their efforts in a Balkan-Danubian Trade Union Federation as part of the Red Trade Union International. Within a few months (July-October) the Moscow InterTrade Union Council succeeded in rallying nearly eight million organized workers from various countries. To sum up, the third anniversary of the Russian Proletarian Revolution coincides with the process of the rapid revolutionary rallying of the working class masses in all countries and foreshadows the forthcoming unfolding of the world-wide proletarian revolution and the triumph of the proletarian dictatorship throughout the world. With the blood they abundantly shed, the Russian procleared the path for the liberation of all working mankind. Celebrating their great historic achievements, the Bulgarian proletarians will prepare ever more persistently to worthily fulfil their duty – to secure the triumph of the Communist revolution in their own country. NOTES 1. After the defeat of Kolchak and Denkin, the entente staked its hopes on Pilsudski, a reactionary nationalist and the strong man of bourgeois Poland, on the one hand, and the White-Russian General Wrangel, on the other. In April 1920 the Polish forces invaded the Ukraine and captured Kiev, while Wrangel advanced from the south and threatened the Donbas. The Red Army launched a counter-offensive, liberated Kiev and advanced to the gates of Warsaw, whereupon Poland concluded a peace treaty with the Soviets (October 20, 1920). Dimitrov Works Archive | Russian Revolution History Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Five Years The Bulgarian Communist Party and the Communist International Source: The Communist International, 1924, No. 1 (New Series), pp. 191-192 Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. The Bulgarian Communist Party (formerly the party of “narrow” Socialists) which has always belonged to the extreme Left wing of the Second International, and been in absolute opposition to the official policy of that body, is carrying on a resolute struggle against opportunism in its own country. It was the first party to cut unhesitatingly all connections with the Second International when the latter committed its act of treachery at the outbreak of the world war, and to declare to the working masses of Bulgaria that that International was already dead as far as Socialism and the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat were concerned, and that the organisation of a real International for revolutionary action was essential. Realising this necessity clearly, the party took an active part in the Zimmerwald and Kienthal Conferences. When, at the beginning of 1919, the Russian Communist Party took the initiative in founding the Third International, action was also taken by the Bulgarian Communist Party, which participated directly in its founding. When the statutes of Comintern were drawn up, the Bulgarian Communist Party took the position that the Communist International, in contradistinction to the opportunistic Socialist International, must not merely be a free friendly combination of Communist parties, but a single, truly international Communist Party with a compulsory international discipline and the widest rights of control over the activities and policies of its separate national sections. In the course of its five years of existence, the Communist International has always enjoyed the unlimited confidence of and great authority over the ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the wide masses of the workers and peasants in the country. This was made especially clear during the time of the disagreements between the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Executive Committee of Comintern regarding the question of party tactics on June 9th. In spite of these differences the party was unanimously in favour of observing International discipline and submitting to the decision of Comintern. When the party had to chose between its own Central Committee, in which it had formerly had absolute faith, and the Executive Committee of Comintern, it unreservedly took the side of the latter. The confirmation of the soundness of the position of Comintern on June 9th, and the complete recognition by the Central Committee of the mistake it then committed still further increased and strengthened the authority of Comintern, and gave further proof that the International must be a real International Communist Party, not satisfied with making merely general decisions, but directly guiding the activities and struggles of its various sections. When the Bulgarian Communist Party was temporarily broken up organisationally, after the September uprising, and ideologically confused, the Communist International proved to be a powerful moral support and an indispensable uniting factor for the party masses. The inevitable crisis within the party came to an end only with the cleansing of its ranks of the vacillating, opportunistic elements, and thanks to the influence and authority of Comintern the party was able to weather the crisis quickly and successfully without damage to party discipline, or divergence from its revolutionary orientation in the forthcoming struggle. The attempt of certain members to break away from the Communist International provoked intense indignation within the party. In spite, of the violence of the reactionaries from which it is suffering, the party rose as one man, and resolutely backed up the International against the renegades and treacherous elements who were immediately thrown out of the party ranks. It may be said without exaggeration that if it had not been for Comintern, the Bulgarian Party, although an old revolutionary party, would not have succeeded in understanding so promptly and correctly what a complete mistake it had made in the bourgeois-fascist revolution; it would not have taken its stand so courageously at the head of the popular uprising of September; it would not have rallied its forces so rapidly after its heavy defeat; it would not have learned so quickly and thoroughly the valuable lessons of the June and September events, and would not at the present time be in a position to direct the great struggle of the working masses against the domination of reaction, and for the creation of a workers’ and peasants’ government in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Communist Party greets the fifth anniversary of the Communist International under the most difficult conditions. Convinced by its own experience of the beneficial role and great importance of Comintern in the revolutionary movement, the Bulgarian Communist Party expresses the ardent wish that the Comintern will continue the development of its activities along the lines it has followed hitherto, and that it will fulfil its difficult tasks as the international party of the revolutionary proletariat, with a single directing world centre and iron discipline within its ranks. G. DIMITROV (Bulgaria). Moscow, February 20th, 1924 Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The European War and the Labour Movement in the Balkans Source: The Communist International, 1924, No. 5 (New Series), pp. 93-103 Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. 1. The Balkan War IN the Balkans the European war was preceded by two other Balkan wars—(1) Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece against Turkey; (2) Serbia, Greece and Roumania—against Bulgaria. On the initiative and under the protection of Czarist Russia, which at that time played the role of the direct executor of the annexationist policy of the Entente with regard to the Balkan Peninsula, the so-called Balkan Union was formed in 1912. It consisted of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. This purely military union, based on a special agreement between three Balkan States concerning the partition of the then Turkish provinces in the Balkans, and especially of Macedonia was directed, of course, against Turkey. At that time Turkey was literally in the hands of German imperialism which extended its influence and built up its basis in Asia Minor at the expense of Great Britain and France, thereby imperilling the interests of the latter in the Near East. It was in the interests of the Entente to weaken Turkey and to use the Balkan States as a barrier against German and Austro-Hungaria penetration into the Balkans and still further into Asia Minor. This was essential from the viewpoint of preparation for the impending European war. The Entente very cleverly exploited the annexationist aspirations of the dynasties and bourgeois classes of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece in respect of Balkan territories which were then under Turkish domination—Macedonia, Thrace and the territory of Adrianople, so as to entangle the Balkan States in a war against Turkey. The masses in Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece were told by the ruling classes that this war was inevitable for the liberation of the populations of Macedonia, Thrace and of the territory of Adrianople, which had been groaning for centuries under the yoke of Turkey, and for the national class population of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greek peoples. One must admit that a considerable section even of the working class population of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece allowed itself to be deceived. Influenced by strong nationalist feelings, they became imbued with the idea that the Balkan Union was being established for the liberation of their “enslaved brothers,” and for the national unification of the scattered peoples. Therefore, they greeted enthusiastically the declaration of the first Balkan war in September, 1912. The oppressed population of Macedonia, Thrace and the Adrianople region, which was under the yoke of Turkish landowners, also believed, and even more fervently than the other nationalities, that the time had come at last for their liberation and for the establishment of their national and political independence. This circumstance played a very important part in the first Balkan war. The Turkish army was defeated in a few rapid encounters and compelled to retreat towards Chadalkja, the vicinity of the gates of Constantinople. After this catastrophic defeat, Turkey proposed to make peace, ceding Macedonia, Thrace and the district of Adrianople. However, the great victory of the Allies (Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece) became the signal for the disintegration of the predatory “Balkan Union.” The Allies who had defeated Turkey and had occupied the Balkan provinces, immediately quarrelled among themselves over the annexed territories which had not been divided, and especially Macedonia. This conflict developed into the second Balkan war—between Bulgaria on the one side, and Serbia and Greece on the other side. Roumania took advantage of this new situation and intervened in the war against Bulgaria, in order to add the Bulgarian section to the Rumanian section of the Dobrudja. Without a single encounter, the Rumanian army marched unmolested to the very walls of Sofia—the capital of Bulgaria. The Entente, and mainly Czarist Russia, took the part of Serbia, Greece and Rumania against Bulgaria, thereby securing for themselves the domination over the Balkans, so necessary to them in the event of the pending European war. This second Balkan war ended for Bulgaria in a crushing defeat. With the exception of a small part of Macedonia, which remained under Bulgarian rule, that country was divided between Serbia and Greece. A considerable section of Thrace was seized by Greece, while Rumania annexed the Bulgarian Dobrudja. Instead of the much vaunted liberation of the oppressed nationalities and of national unification of the divided peoples, the Balkan wars resulted in a still greater national separatism, and in a more cruel national slavery than before. The national contradictions, which existed before these wars, became more acute and more complicated. The chasm between Bulgaria and Turkey on the one hand, and Serbia, Greece and Rumania on the other hand was widened, and the antagonism between these countries reached unprecedented proportions.

The chasm between Bulgaria and Turkey on the one hand, and Serbia, Greece and Rumania on the other hand was widened, and the antagonism between these countries reached unprecedented proportions. When Serbia, Greece and Rumania became the tools of the Entente, Bulgaria and Turkey were already the blind tools at the mercy of German imperialism. In this way the Balkan States were allotted the role of vassals of these two imperialist groups in the coming European war. 2. The Balkans in the European War Exactly twelve months after the end of the second Balkan war, the European war broke out in July, 1914. The deep wounds inflicted by the two Balkan wars had not had time to heal, and the consequences of the terrible devastation wrought by these wars had not yet been liquidated when the Balkan peoples were confronted with the terrible fate of being drawn into the general European war. Both belligerent imperialist groups did their utmost—from promises of territorial aggrandisement to the bribery of dynasties and statesmen, as well as of entire parties and of the Press—to win the support of the Balkan States, in order to be able to use the Balkans as a base for the European war. However, the situation created by the Balkan wars in the Balkans, had already pre-ordained the participation of the Balkan States in the war either on the side of the Entente, or on the side of the Central European Powers, so that it depended entirely on the development of the great European war when these States would become active participators in it. Serbia was under the direct influence of Czarist Russia and France, and was bound to become the first victim of the sanguinary conflict between the two imperialist groups. Although the other Balkan States had proclaimed their neutrality when war broke out between Serbia and Austro-Hungary, they only waited for their opportunity (the command of their patrons) to plunge their peoples into the war, and place their territories at the disposal of the Great Powers. Bulgaria proclaimed a so-called “armed neutrality.” But it was no secret to anyone that this “neutrality” was a benevolent neutrality only as far as the Central Powers were concerned. War material, submarines and military instructors from Germany and Austro-Hungary were sent through Bulgarian territory to Turkey, and it was not very long before Bulgaria openly joined the Central Powers. This happened in the second half of 1915, when Bulgaria attacked the rear of the Serbian army, which had already been fighting against Austro-Hungary for the past twelve months. For the purpose of opposing the victorious march of the Bulgarian army through Serbia and Macedonia, and preventing it from joining the Austro-Hungarian army, the Entente brought Rumania into the fray. The stubborn resistance of Greece to being drawn into the war on the side of the Entente, led to its occupation on the part of the Entente armies and to its transformation into a base for the military actions of the Entente in the Balkan Peninsula. Thus, the Balkans became one of the most important and most sanguinary fronts in the whole European war. In addition to the war slogans, issued by both belligerent imperialist groups, slogans intended to deceive their peoples and to induce them to suffer the horrors of war to the bitter end, the Balkan Governments also made use of their old nationalist catchwords to explain and justify their intervention in the war. They said: Bulgaria had to fight for its national unification and for the liberation of Macedonia. Serbia had to bring about the national unification of all Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and had to make certain of all its annexations during the Balkan wars; Rumania was obliged to fight for its national unification, and Turkey had to shake off the yoke of Entente imperialism. And although the conclusion of the European war in the Balkans was begun because of the disorganisation of the Bulgarian army, and its compulsory retreat from the Salonica front in September, 1918, the war in this part of the world went on a long time after its nominal conclusion, in the form of a war between Greece and Turkey, which ended in the defeat of Greece and its final expulsion from those territories of Asia Minor which it had occupied. 3. The Sacrifices and Devastations caused by War in the Balkans The Balkan peoples were the victims of terrible devastations during these wars, and made comparatively the greatest sacrifices. Both the victorious and vanquished were quite exhausted at the close of hostilities. The following data, which are far from complete, will give an approximate idea of the terrible human and material losses caused by the wars in the Balkans. In the Balkan wars, the Serbian losses amounted to 36,000 killed, 60,000 wounded, 45,000 invalids and one milliard dinars of war expenditure. Bulgaria had 55,000 killed, 105,000 wounded, 40,000 invalids and 2,000,000,000 levas war expenditure. Turkey had 150,000 killed, 80,000 massacred, 450,000 died of epidemics, and 1,075,000,000 French francs war expenditure. In Greece the total killed in battle and died from disease was 30,000 and 20,000 were invalided. Moreover, the Serbian army killed during the Balkan wars about 100,000 Albanians and burnt down their villages. A large section of Macedonia and Thrace was laid waste by fire. Apart from the losses and victims which cannot be exactly ascertained, the toll of the two Balkan wars consisted of 415,000 lives lost both in battle and from various other causes, and 4,000,000,000 (in round figures) francs war expenditure. In this respect, the European war presents a much more terrible picture. Serbia was for a long time the only theatre of military operations, and was under military occupation for three years.

The losses inflicted on the country during this period of terrible devastation beggar description. In Serbia, with a population of 4,000,000 the number of those killed and who died from various diseases was 800,000, whilst 1,000,000 were wounded and 220,000 crippled. Of the 150,000 men and women who were driven into Austria, 70,000 died. Scores of thousands of Serbs were despatched to Bulgaria and most of them died. In that part of Serbia which was occupied by Bulgaria, 20,000 people were killed and 40 villages were burnt down by the occupation authorities. Serbia's war expenditure in the European war amounted to 15 milliard dinars. In the European war, the Bulgarian losses were 150,000 killed, 300,000 wounded, and 160,000 invalids. Its war expenditure amounted to 7,000,000,000 levas. Rumanian losses were 80,000 killed, many thousands died of epidemics. Her expenditure amounted to 12,000,000,000 lei. Turkey had 350,000 killed, and 900,000 died of epidemics. Moreover, 710,000 of the peaceful population of Turkey were massacred. Its war expenditure amounted to 1,020,000 French francs, and 220,000,000 Turkish lire. In the war between Turkey and Greece, the former had 180,000 killed and 150,000 died of epidemics, and the latter's losses included 60,000 killed and 40,000 who died from disease and almost 1,000,000 made homeless refugees. On the whole, in the Balkan States during the European wars (killed, died of disease and massacres), there were roughly 3,500,000 human victims. The war expenditure amounted to 50 milliards French francs. After the European war Yugo-Slavia (the former Serbia) was saddled with a national debt of 40 milliard dinars—1,700 dinars per inhabitant. Rumania has a debt of 25,000,000,000 gold lei, while the national debt of Bulgaria amounts to over 100 milliard levas—22,273 levas per inhabitant. 4. The Situation in the Balkans after the European War It is unnecessary to point out that the European war did not result in the national emancipation and unification of the Balkan peoples in any greater degree than the former Balkan wars had done. On the contrary national separatism and national slavery increased. Yugo-Slavia is a typical example of national separatism and national mixtures in the Balkans. The total population of this Balkan State amounts to 12,055,638. Its national composition is as follows: Serbs, 1,023,588 (18.5 per cent.); Yugo-Slavs, Moslems, 759,656 (6.3 per cent.); Macedonians, Bulgarians, 630,000 (5.3 per cent.); Germans, 512,207 (4.3 per cent.); Hungarians, 472,079 (3.9 per cent.); Albanians, 483,871 (4 per cent.); Rumanians, 183,871 (1.6 per cent.); Turks, 143,453 (1.2 per cent.); Italians, 11,630 (0.1 per cent.); other Slavs, 198,857 (1.6 per cent.); and Jews, Gipsies and others, 42,756 (0.3 per cent.). The Serbian bourgeoisie, which represents a nation forming only one-third of the total population of Yugo-Slavia, exercises a hegemony over the remaining two-thirds of the population, and carries on a violent policy for their denationalisation.

The Serbian bourgeoisie, which represents a nation forming only one-third of the total population of Yugo-Slavia, exercises a hegemony over the remaining two-thirds of the population, and carries on a violent policy for their denationalisation. The already complicated problem in the Balkans has now become more complicated than in any other part of the world. The new changes introduced into the map of the Balkan Peninsula by the various peace treaties, have created artificial States, such as Yugo-Slavia, and Rumania, and quite impossible frontiers for the Balkan States. Within the framework of these States, there is a population of many millions (Macedonians, Croats, Slovenes, Dobrudjians, Bessarabians, Transylvanians, etc., etc.), fighting for national independence. Macedonia has been divided up amongst three states—Yugo-Slavia, Greece and Bulgaria; Thrace—between Greece and Turkey. The Dobrudja has remained under the domination of Rumanian landowners. The territories separated from the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy—Croatia, Slovenia, Voyevodina (a small part of Croatia), Dalmatia, Bosnia, Hertzegovina—are under the hegemony of the Serbian Dynasty and bourgeoisie. The former Austro-Hungarian territories—Transylvania and Bukovina—came under the sway of Rumanian landowners and capitalists, who also seized Bessarabia. Albania is the subject of the annexationist aspirations of both Yugo-Slavia and Greece. The old rivalry between German and Entente imperialism in the Balkans has been put an end to by the crushing defeat inflicted on the Central Powers during the European war. But instead of it, the Balkans have been converted, for all intents and purposes, into a colony of Entente imperialism and into a bulwark of imperialist counter-revolution in which French capitalism plays the first fiddle. More than ever before, the Balkans have become a volcano which can become at any moment the source of terrible bloodshed, and the signal for the next imperialist war, into which imperialism is driving mankind. 5. War against War Notwithstanding nationalist enthusiasm, which seized upon a considerable section of workers at the outbreak of the Balkan war, the Social-Democratic Party in the Balkans (now the Communist Party), and especially in Bulgaria and Serbia, opposed together with the Balkan Socialist (now Communist Federation, this “war of liberation” in a most energetic matter. In their Press and by means of special manifestoes, as well as from platforms both inside and outside Parliament, they explained to the masses the true nature of the predatory “Balkan Union,” which is a product of the annexationist policy of the bourgeois classes and of monarchism in Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, as well as European imperialism. They warned the people that the Balkan war cannot and will not give national emancipation and unity to the Balkan peoples, because it was a war of conquest carried on by the Bulgarian-Serbian and Greek Alliance. Greece did not declare war on Turkey, with a view to liberating Macedonia and the other territories under a nationalist yoke, but for the purpose of conquering and dividing them among themselves with the result that after the victory over Turkey, they would quarrel amongst each other in the scramble for the booty. In opposition to the “Balkan Union” created by the ruling sections of society for the purpose of carrying on an annexationist wary they issued the slogan of peace between the Balkan peoples and the formation of a Federated Balkan Republic, within which the oppressed and ruined Balkan peoples would be able to achieve their national emancipation and unity, and with the aid of which they could resist the annexationist offensive of the great European imperialist powers whose object was to make the Balkan Peninsula a colony of their own. Although they were unable to prevent the war, they voted against war credits and insisted on its early conclusion, while the “broad Socialists” (Menshevik) of Bulgaria and their colleagues in Greece placed themselves entirely at the disposal of the bourgeoisie and its policy. Because of their determined opposition to the war, the revolutionary Social Democratic Parties in Serbia were declared to be traitors to their countries and were subjected to relentless persecution. The entire Central Committee of the Bulgarian Party was tried for publishing the anti-war manifesto. But the trend of events during the war and their results showed that the attitude they had adopted had been correct, and had disillusioned the masses who had been carried away by national enthusiasm. At the close of the Balkan wars, these masses began to rally very rapidly to their banner. When the European war was declared and begun by the Austro-Hungarian attack on Serbia, the Serbian Party, represented by two of its members in parliament, had the courage to make a protest against the war, and to refuse to vote war credits, in spite of the united forces of the bourgeoisie. In contradistinction to the bourgeoisie, which declared that this war was a defensive war and directed against the attack by Austro-Hungary, the Serbian Party exposed the fact that Serbia was drawn into the imperialist war as a vassal of the Entente, and that the blood of the Serbian people was being shed in both the interests of the reigning bourgeois clique and of monarchism, and for the aims of the Entente imperialists. During the trying three years’ period of military devastation to which Serbia was subjected, the Serbian Social-Democratic Party did not swerve for a moment from the right path and remained true to itself, to revolutionary Socialism and to the supreme vital interests of the workers and of the peasantry. Contrary to the “broad Socialists,” who, together with the pro-Entente opposition parties, were favouring Bulgaria’s intervention in the war on the side of the Entente, the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party (the Narrow Socialists) carried on for a whole twelve months a most energetic fight both in and outside parliament against the participation of the Bulgarian people in the imperialist war, whether it be on the side of the Entente or on the side of the Central Powers.

It never ceased to expose and to explain to the masses that both the “armed neutrality” of the Radoslavov Government and the Czar Ferdinand, was a blind tool of German imperialism; his “armed neutrality” was merely a cloak for the efforts which were made to draw Bulgaria into the war on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary. The Party was equally energetic in denouncing the pro-Entente opposition bloc, which did its utmost to throw Bulgaria into the arms of the Entente. By exposing the imperialist character of the European war at demonstrations and meetings organised by it, as well as in the Press, the Bulgarian Party brought into being a big anti-war feeling throughout the country, and when in igr5 the Radoslavov Government declared for the mobilisation, the workers and peasants were not only without any illusions about the true character of the European war, but devoid of enthusiasm such as had prevailed at the outbreak of the Balkan war: in some districts open resistance was made to mobilisation and participation in the war. In spite of the fierce persecution of the Party, it fought together with the trade unions against the war from its beginning to its conclusion. In parliament it voted against war credits, in the country it carried on an active campaign for the speedy termination of the war, while on the various fronts it formed its own nuclei for propaganda in the army against war, and for the organisation of armed resistance to its continuance. For this purpose the Party published a number of illegal pamphlets and leaflets, and circulated them in the army just at the time when the “broad Socialists” leaders, together with the representatives of other bourgeois parties, toured the fronts agitating among the soldiers for the continuation of the war to the bitter end. After the Russian October Revolution, which ended in victory for the proletariat and peasantry, the Party carried on its anti-war campaign with still greater energy. As a result of this prolonged and energetic campaign, a rebellion broke out in the Bulgarian army in September, 1918. This rebellion played a large role in the termination of the imperialist war. In its determined fight against the imperialist war, the Communist Party and the Labour movement in Bulgaria made many great sacrifices. The prisons were filled to overflowing with active members and supporters of the Party. Two of the members of the Central Committee of the Party were condemned—one to three, and the other to five years’ solitary confinement for anti-war propaganda. Thousands of sympathisers of the Party in the army were subjected to cruel persecution and ill-treatment, and scores of them were shot. In Rumania, Greece and Turkey, revolutionary Socialists and workers also made great sacrifices and fought (although less energetically) against the war. We are justified in saying that contrary to Germany, France, Great Britain and other countries where the reformist leaders succeeded in drawing the Labour movement into the imperialist war, the Labour movement in the Balkans was from beginning to end a determined opponent to it. And now, ten years after the outbreak of the imperialist war, when imperialism is driving the world into new and more terrible wars, the revolutionary workers and peasants of the Balkans, who are under the leadership of Communist Parties, and who have profited by the sanguinary lessons of the two last Balkan wars, and especially by the lessons of the European war, understand full well that the only means for the prevention of a new imperialist war, is the class war of the workers and peasants against the bourgeoisie and imperialism, for the overthrow of the bourgeois regime and the establishment of a workers’ and peasants’ government, for the establishment of proletarian dictatorship in the Balkans as well as on an international scale. Dimitrov Georgi Dimitrov Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Small Nations First Published: 1917 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 139, October 25. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 53-55 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 The imperialists of the Entente1) have been dinning it into the ears of the whole world that they were fighting for the rights and liberties of the small nations. In one of his speeches Lloyd George, comparing the big and small nations, said: 'Great are indeed the centuries-old pines and oaks, but it is from the small nations that we pick the most valfruit', and that the small nations, too, if left to develop freely and independently, were as necessary and valuable for the progress of mankind as the big ones, while Asquith,2) in speaking about the conditions which peace would bring to the peoples, said: 'Both big and small, powand weak, will have equal rights of freedom and in' In quoting the above and other statements, a Sofia daily concludes: 'If this principle of equality of nations does inprevail, and is applied after the conclusion of peace, its consequences for the Bulgarian people will be most favourable.' Is it possible that the bourgeoisie of the Entente should have abandoned its age-old traditions of keeping hundreds of millions of nations, big and small, under subjection? In actual fact we see nothing of the kind. On the contrary. The Entente mobilized the whole fit male generation of the coloured peoples under its domination, using it as cannon fodder, to defend and expand the domination of the same bourgeoisie over the smaller and backward nations, while the outrages against the Irish people3) who are fighting for freedom and independence are still fresh in our memory. This loquaciousness of the ruling Entente bourgeoisie is probably due to the successes which it scored during the present war in enlisting a substantial part of the small European nations as well in its imperialist orbit. Since the beginning of the war now raging we have been observing a new trend in the imperialist policy of the warbourgeoisie. The one as well as the other strive by all means to conceal the imperialist goals which they pursue in the present war from their own peoples and still more from those they aspire to, and to facilitate their task they have cast yet another bait: alliance with the latter. Let us recall here the well-known fact of how the En in order to drag nations which stood outside, but which were and continue to be an object of its imperialist policy, into its colonial whirlpool, too, threw wide open its safes for all traitors who were and are ready to sell out their nations for gold. Serbia, Rumania, Portugal, Greece, and if you wish Bulgaria, too, irrefutably prove this, always in the form of an alliance. But what does an alliance of the small and underdevelnations with the great and developed capitalist powers mean in the present world capitalist duel? The answer is well known. Belgium, Serbia, Rumania, Russia, etc.., were nations which gave their last man in the fight, and on whose territories the most devastating military operations have been and are taking place, where everything has been reto ashes and ruins, while, at the same time, America, Britain, etc.. stand at a respectful distance from the conseof the world crime. But this is only the one side of the medal. We all know that in the present war armaments assumed colossal, unprecedented proportions. Most of the industries in the capitalist countries are engaged in the production of equipfor the battling armies. Hundreds of millions of leva are wasted every day for this purpose by the belligerent nations, which vie in contracting loan after loan for billions of leva. The small and still underdeveloped capitalist nations are compelled to contract their state loans and armaments with their powerful allies. These nations have thus been burwith unbearable debts towards the latter, while the bourgeoisie heading the belligerent blocs secured for itself a sure income for many a year from the interest on these loans as well as lush profits from the deliveries of arms, clothing, food etc.., which it makes to these countries. What is more, the capitals of these powerful allies peneinto these countries in yet another way: new banks, bank branches, increasing the capital of already existing banks etc.. are the first steps along this line. All this leads us to conclude with certainty that this is the beginning of the end of the independence of the small nations, to whom such compliments are paid from London. And Lloyd George is not wrong when he says that the people whom he represents pick valuable fruit from these nations. He is also right when he declares that these nations will in future be left to develop freely, as freely indeed as the small trees develop in the shade of the age-old oaks. NOTES 1) Referring to the Entente between France, Russia and Great Britain and in 1915 joined by Italy, a member of the Triple Alliance in prewar days. 2) Asquith, Herbert Henry (1852-1928) - British statesman, leader of the Liberal Party, barrister, Minister of Home Affairs (189295) in the Gladstone Government. Prime Minister 1908-1916. On his orders the policy shot down the striking miners in Featherstone. On the eve of the First World War he submitted a bill on granting self-government to Ireland, which was twice rejected by the House of Lords. In 1916 he was replaced by Lloyd George, after which Asquith became a Lord and ceased to play a political role. 3) On April 23, 1916, revolutionary workers and nationalists organized in the Irish Civil Army and the Irish Volunteers (later the Irish Republican Army), captured Dublin and proclaimed an Irish Republic. Dublin held out for five days, but the expected general rising failed to break out owing to the' betrayal of the national bourgeoisie, and the rising, known as 'Bloody Easter' was crushed. All leaders were executed. According to Lenin, it was the misfortune of the Irish that they rose when conditions were not yet ripe for a European proletarian revolution. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Right Road First Published: 1918 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 273, May 1. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 56-57 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 It has long been known and beyond dispute that the proletariat has a very great striking power owing to its crucial and irreplaceable role in modern production as the creator of all social wealth, as well as to its numerical strength which is increasing with every passing day. Destroying the old forms and methods of production and dispossessing the mass of independent petty owners and producers, the continuous concentration of production, the progress of modern technology and the merciless capitalist competition, on the one hand, place the whole production process in the hands of the proletariat and, on the other, increasingly multiply and tighten its ranks. By dint of this objective development, the proletariat gradually emerges as the only productive, most numerous and powerful social class. Inspite of this historical fact, however, for many decades and up to this day, the proletariat has been harnessed to the yoke of the capitalist industrial and social system, exploited and divested of its rights by the ruling classes, which possess the capital. The very existence of the tremendous spontaneous force of the proletariat derived from its great numbers and its economic role, therefore, by itself is quite insufficient to set it free, to make it complete master of its destinies and worthy of its great historic mission. On this objective basis, it is necessary to build up the real social and political force of the proletariat, to transform it into a class of itself, as Marx said in 1848, through a decisive struggle for the reconstruction of capitalist society. In their remarkable Communist Manifesto 1) Marx and Engels, the great founders of scientific socialism, as early as seventy years ago showed and scientifically elucidated this only correct road towards proletarian liberation - the road of the class struggle of the proletariat. Mercilessly castigating the misleaders of the workers at that time - various bourgeois, socialists and parlour pinks, Marx and Engels, unlike them, called themselves communists and gave to their historic appeal to the international proletariat the name of Communist Manifesto. Today, when May Day, the labour holiday, coincides with the 70th anniversary of the writing of the Communist Manifesto (1848-1918) and the 100th anniversary of Marx's birth (1818-1918), we feel how the closing words of the Communist Manifesto Proletarians of all countries, unite! are raised and spread throughout the world. We are most gratified to note that the socialist proletariat in Bulgaria has not deviated from the right road. It has not betrayed the emancipatory cause and the ideas of the international proletariat. It refused to sacrifice its general and lasting vital inter its principles, its programme and its future for petty momentary gains and for a mess of pottage. The Social-democratic Party and the workers' trade unions have gained strength. Their means of carrying on the fight have increased. Their printed organ today, in spite of everything, has a three times wider circulation. Social democracy in Parliament and in the municipalihas honourably acquitted itself of its duty, endeavouring to relieve the condition of the workers' masses as much as possible and, through labour laws and various other measures, to protect them from physical and moral degradation. Precisely this road remains to be followed in future, still more firmly and more resolutely. The early prospects of a new and still more powerful rallying of the proletariat all over the world for the class struggle against capitalism are clearly outlined on the May Day horizon. NOTES 1) The Manifesto of the Communist Party - written by Marx and Engels on the order of the Union of Communists, the first international organization of the revolutionary proletariat, founded in London in 1847. 'This little book is worth many volumes. The entire organized and militant proletariat in the civilized world has been living to this day in its spirit.' (Lenin, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 10-11) Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov 1948 The October Socialist Revolution Opened for Mankind the Road to Real Democracy and Socialism Written: By Georgi Dimitrov, 1948; Source: For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy! Vol. 2, no. 21; November 1, 1948; Transcribed: David Adams, March 2022. The Great October Socialist Revolution opened up for mankind the road to true democracy and Socialism, to the elimination of the exploitation of man by man. During the thirty-one years of Soviet power, the Soviet Union, led by Lenin and Stalin, has become the most progressive and mighty Socialist power, steadily advancing to Communism. By destroying the Hitler war machine, the heroic Soviet Army not only defended the freedom and independence of the Socialist fatherland but also saved mankind from fascist, Teutonic barbarism. Marching at the head of the democratic anti-imperialist camp, the Soviet Union today is the sure bulwark of peace, democracy and progress against the warmongers and the new pretenders to world domination the American imperialists. On this 31st Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, millions of peoples throughout the world will answer the malignant slanders of the imperialists by demonstrating their love and devotion to the land of Socialism, which is selflessly and wisely fighting for a stable, democratic peace. They will demonstrate their determination to advance shoulder to shoulder with the Soviet people and to stop the war the imperialists are now preparing against the Soviet Union. The peoples of the whole world well remember the words of the great Stalin that there is a wide gulf between the imperialist desire to unleash a new world war and the possibility of such a war. Isn’t it because they are not really prepared for it that the Anglo-American imperialists are clamouring about a new war? They realise as well as we do, where such an adventure would bring them in the end. For World War One ended in victory for the working people on one-sixth of the earth. After World War Two, the new democracies dropped out of the imperialist orbit. These imperialist gentlemen can rest assured that if the Wall Street bosses embark on a new war it can only bring them an even greater and possibly final defeat—the complete destruction of the capitalist system. The imperialists, who are living their last days, are aware of this. But despite this, they are still crying from the roof tops about the imminent danger of war. While the Soviet Union is making every effort to maintain and strengthen the peace and to settle international disputes peaceably, while she has suggested that the five great powers should ban atomic weapons and reduce their armaments, as well as putting forward other measures to guarantee the peace and security of the peoples, the ranting American imperialists in their animal fear at the growing forces of peace, democracy and Socialism are, together with their satellites, systematically conducting war propaganda. They are preparing for war and are threatening the peoples with the atom bomb. Like international gangsters they cynically boast that with their atom bomb they can wipe out millions of peaceful people who refuse to be subjugated to their will. Obviously the imperialists have to keep up this war hysteria, to stir up the storm and, as the saying goes, to “go fishing in troubled waters” in the interests of the monopolists, the armament kings and financial bosses. But they will not be able to trouble the waters of peace for very long because there exists the great Soviet Union, the new democracies and the ever-growing international camp of peace and democracy, The future of the world depends upon the unity of world democratic, anti-imperialist forces upon their determination to fight for peace and security, for genuine democracy and Socialism. The working class and the working people of the world, who are rallying more and more closely round the Soviet Union, can frustrate the crafty designs and machinations of the warmongers and prevent a new slaughter. The growing might and the international prestige of the Soviet Union is the guarantee of peace and freedom for the peoples. Never was it so clear as today, after World War Two, that without the Soviet Union there is not, and cannot be freedom and independence of the people. Only deliberate betrayers of the peoples interests, the irresponsible adventures and blind careerists, can try to divert their people from the only possible path of developing peoples, democracy and building Socialism—the path of genuine, unshakable friendship with the Soviet Union, of close solidarity with the international camp of peace, democracy and Socialism—which the Soviet Union heads. Celebrating the 31st Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the working people of the new democracies and honest people throughout the world look with the deepest gratitude toward the great Party of Lenin and Stalin which secured the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, the building of the powerful Soviet State and Socialist society on one-sixth of the earth, and which built the glorious Soviet Army which liberated a number of peoples of Europe from the fascist yoke thus making it possible for them to build a new life and set out firmly on the path of democratic development toward the building of socialist society. The people of Bulgaria who, thirty-one years ago, enthusiastically welcomed the October Socialist Revolution, are today more than ever aware that their destiny is closely linked with that of the great fraternal-Soviet Union. Without the Soviet Union the people of Bulgaria would still have been in the clutches of the German imperialists and of their agents, the Bulgarian fascists. Without the support of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria would have fallen into the stronghold of imperialists no less insolently aggressive and crafty than the Hitler bandits. Without the help of the Soviet people, our people, would have died of starvation during the difficult years of draught, and our economy would now be in a state of decline and chaos. Without the Soviet Union, there would be no freedom or independence for the peoples of South-Eastern Europe nor the prosperity of peoples democracy advancing along the path to Socialism. Building a new life under the leadership of the working class and its Communist vanguard, the people of Bulgaria are gratefully learning from the heroic Soviet people and the great Bolshevik Party how to combat and defeat their enemies, how to overcome the numerous difficulties and dangers in their defence of freedom and independence, in the socialist construction of their country. They are firmly convinced that the more they learn from the rich experience of the struggle to build a Socialist society in the Soviet Union, the quicker and more successfully will they build a free, cultured and happy life. Glory to the Great October Socialist Revolution which resulted in the creation of the first Socialist State in the world, the guiding star and inspiration for the whole of progressive mankind. Glory to the great Party of Lenin, and Stalin, the surest teacher and example for Communists and all peoples fighting for lasting peace, for real democracy and Socialism. Warm greetings, to the brilliant leader and teacher, J. V. Stalin! Dimitrov Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Need of Trade Unions in Bulgaria and Their Organization Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 7-22 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 I It is not for the first time that the question of the formation of trade unions is being raised in our country. As early as 1894, as a result of the efforts of the Social Democratic Party to organize the printing workers who had grown restless at that time, the Central Workers' Trade Union was set up in Sofia, with branches in the provinces. However, after the Sofia general printers' strike and the strikes in Rouss� and Varna this newly-founded trade union went to pieces. It was destroyed at its' very inception by the anarchic movement of the printers. Around 1900, when the printers' trade union was re-established and a few other trade union organizations were set up in Sofia, the question of their unification with those existing in the provinces into trade unions was again put forward. It was considered at that time that several trade unions should be set up first, with the General Trade Union then emerging from among their midst, as happened in the more advanced Western nations. Attempts were made first to form a printers' union which was to serve as a model to the unions of blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors, etc. These attempts, however, encountered insurmountable obstacles in the weak development of capitalist production. The small trade union groups, scattered all over the country, which were actually educational circles, did not feel directly and strongly the need of a trade union organization. The Sofia trade union associations, which should have formed the basis of the trade unions, were in their early phase of stabilization, in a weak and insecure condition. The trade union organization affected practilly only the artisan workers. The trade-union-organized struggle was in its initial stage. The Workers' Social Democratic Party, which until then, owing to the petty bourgeois character of our country, had been almost entirely engrossed in political propaganda among the petty bourgeoisie, was just beginning to pay more serious attention to the needs of the workers' movement. On the other hand, the fateful struggle against the bourgeois influence of the Right-Wing Socialists in the ranks of the Party and the ensuing Party and trade union splits in 1903 relegated the question of the unification of the local trade union associations either into trade unions or into a General Trade Union somewhat to the background. Experience shows clearly that under the then prevailing conditions within the trade union movement it was impossible to form individual trade unions. The only form of orgafor the unification of the trade union associations into a whole was the General Trade Union. And when after our split with the Right-Wing Socialists the workers' move which had grown stronger at that time, called for a unification of the trade unions, the foundations of the General Workers' Trade Union were laid in 1904. Moreover, as it was impossible to form individual trade unions in most of the towns, mixed trade unions were formed which are a transitional form in organizing the workers in trade unions. Having anticipated the establishment of trade unions, the General Trade Union had to assume many of their functions. But as the mixed trade unions, owing to their heterogeneous composition, are not able adequately to fulfil the task of a trade union organization, so also the General Trade Union, although playing a very important role in the organization and unification of the trade union movement in our country and in intensifying the general class struggle, cannot successfully and adequately perform the work of the individual trade unions. The sooner the latter are set up and take over their functions from the Union, the more successthese functions will be performed and the better it will be able to devote itself to its special task - as general organand leader of the trade union movement, as an idea unthe organization of the broad masses of factory workers, the bulk of whom are still unorganized, and draw them under its banner. The question of the trade unions was again put forward at the trade union congress last year. Without going into greater detail, the congress adopted in principle the necessity and feasibleness of such unions under the new conditions and recommended to the local trade union associations able to do so to proceed to the formation of trade unions. To this end, the Trade Union Committee drew up a special trade union draft constitution during the current year. After studying the question in detail, the Sofia printers' trade union, in agreement with the existing printers' groups and sections of the mixed trade unions in the provinces, laid the foundations of the printers' trade union. After all this, this year the fourth trade union congress will deal specially with the question of the formation of trade unions and will have to give a definite instruction to the trade union associations along this line. It is clear to everybody that today this question is being put forward under conditions quite different from those of a few years ago. With the development of capitalist production and the passing over of some crafts to a more or less capitalist form of production, the number of factories has considerably increased, and big workshops were opened with many more workers. The constant shifting of workers from one town to another, from one branch of production to another, shows all too clearly the close link between the interests of the Sofia and provincial workers. The workers' movement on the whole and the trade union movement in particular are assuming a mass character. The struggle is now waged not only against individual masters, but against their organizations as well - the crafts and the industrial associations. The latter also rely on the support of the state with all its organs - police, army, chambers of commerce and industry, etc. As an illustration we can point out, apart from many other strikes, the strike of the Pernik miners1) and the general railwaymen's3) strike. The individual strikes are growing into struggles for wage scales. There is already a strong movement among tobacco, textile and other factory workers.

There is already a strong movement among tobacco, textile and other factory workers. In order to oppose the strikers' movement, besides everything else, the bosses, irrespective of their party differences, formed a common bloc against the workers' strikes,3) against which we shall have to battle. On the other hand, the enlistment of the workers in our union has made considerable progress. The number of trade union associations is growing more rapidly than that of the mixed ones. Most of the former have already stepped firmly on their feet. They are being speedily transformed from primarily educational organizations, as they were before, into real trade union associations, which seriously look upon improving working conditions and promoting the consclass struggle against hired labour. Here, however, they are confronted with the impossibility of further spreading their influence among the workers of their own trade and of combating more successfully the ruthless exploitation, bethey do not dispose of the power and means of the orgaworkers of their trade on a national basis, i. e. because they have not been transformed into trade unions. Under these new conditions the trade union movement needs a new organization. To preserve the status quo means to check the progress of the workers' movement in general. And this is quite obvious. A strike must be properly organized, must be able to rely on the general solidarity of the workers of a given trade throughout the country and on their moral and material support, in order to be successful, both practically and ideologically. This, however, can be achieved in good time and with success, when the workers of the same trade scattered all over the country constitute an organized whole, pooling their efforts and means and directing them towards the same goal. The preliminary study and appraisal of the conditions for every prospective strike will then be more exact and certain, because the Union with its statistical data on the conditions of production, the number of workers, organized and unorganized, etc.., not only locally, but nationally, will host be able to judge whether or not a strike should be started. When there are trade unions, many of the hitherto quite unprepared and often senseless strikes will not be declared, and the necessary organization will more easily be introduced in the strikes. In strikes headed by the trade unions the bosses will not be able to count on hiring workers in the provinces as scabs or on moving their enterprises to other towns, because they will know that they are up against a national workers' union.4) Moreover, a major reason for the failure of almost all unsuccessful strikes has been the low percentage of organized workers and the presence of a large number of unorworkers, from among whom the bosses have hitherto been able to recruit plenty of scabs. We shall be able to attract these masses of workers to our ranks through a strong and steadily exercised influence. The trade unions will then be much better able to carryout a broad socialist propaganda, both oral and through the press, among the workers of their trade, than at present the different trade union associations and particularly the mixed ones. Their attractive force will be greater: 1) because they will embrace workers from all towns; 2) because the numerous workers who are now members of the educational groups in towns where even mixed trade union associations cannot be formed, as well as those at factories situated far away from the towns, will be able to join the unions and thus increase considerably their financial and moral force. Such workers are to be found in Bourgas, Aitos, Karnobat, Nova Zagora, Harmanli, Chirpan, Kazanluk, Gorna Oryahovitsa, Gabrovo, Radomir, Samokov, Trun, Breznik, Peshtera, Kocherinovo, Panagyurisht�, Toutrakan, Belyovo, Banya Kostenets, Sestrimo, Dolna Banya, and other localities. Among them there are over 500 to 600 organized workers - tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, printers, etc.., who are not members of any trade union association, and 3) because the unions will be able to undertake more successpractical campaign in favour of the workers and to reach broader masses of unorganized workers with their propaganda and agitation. All this will be of great help in enlisting in our ranks the sound elements of the Right-Wing Socialists and in preserving them now that the Right-Wing Socialist Party is disintegrating under the influence of the Radical Democrats who, after having adopted the theory and practice of that party, are out to inherit its influence among the workers. On the other hand, by performing all trade union functions (organizing and financing strikes, assisting the unemployed, the ill and travelling workers, propaganda, and agi etc..) better than the individual trade union associ the trade unions will be able with much greater success to fight against unemployment - this terrible scourge for the working class. A product of capitalist production, unemployment will not be completely eliminated so long as the present order prevails. But the workers' organis in a position to mitigate to a large extent the dire consequences of unemployment. This can be achieved by assisting the unemployed and travelling workers, by organizing employment agencies and collecting statistical data on the conditions of employment. The centralized forces and funds of the trade union, however, are needed for the purpose. Consequently, from the viewpoint of trade union organand the workers' trade union struggle, the necessity of establishing trade union is imperative. But this is not all. As is well known, the improvements which we are trying to introduce in the working conditions by means of the trade union struggle, are not an end in themselves, but only a means of intensifying and more successfully waging the general class struggle, for the complete abolition of hired slavery. From this only correct viewpoint, the trade union movement is of value insofar as it helps to promote the emancipatory class struggle. The interests of the latter, however, dictate with no less exigency a concentration of the trade union associations into trade unions. At present the working class is living through an important and crucial moment. Its political activity is strongly circumscribed.

Its political activity is strongly circumscribed. It is up against a reactionary legislation. The reactionary artisan law pales before the much more reactionary laws against the strikes, against the association of the state workers and against the press. The ruling and the oppositionary bourgeoisie close their ranks and make common cause against the workers' organization and their struggle. It has learned from us and from our struggles against it to organize itself, but now, supported by the state, it is trying to outdo us in this respect. The bourgeoisie is showing a higher class consciousness than we, workers. While part of the working class is dragging a ong behind notorious demagogues and petty bourgeois politicians in blocs and other bourgeois campaigns, the bourgeoisie is unaniforging laws and chains against our emancipatory movement and forms a bloc against strikes. To restore and safeguard the rights of the working class, to parry the blows of the bourgeoisie, to paralize its influence among the workers and to obtain ever more favourable conditions for the existence and the class struggle of the Bulgarian proletariat, trade union organizations are needed with centralized funds and forces. A united bloc of the working class under the banner of social democracy must be firmly opposed to the bloc of the ruling and oppositionary bourgeoisie against the organized workers' movement. A necessary prerequisite for this is the unification of the trade union groups and workers scattered all over the country in trade unions. The trade unions will penetrate broader masses of workers, will broaden and deepen their influence over them, will help to make their struggle more conscientious and sucand will promote their unification under the banner of social democracy. In this way the general class struggle of the Bulgarian proletariat will be more united and powerful. Thus, without going into greater detail, the interests of the trade union struggle, as well as those of the entire emancipatory workers' movement call most insistently for the formation of trade unions as part of the General Workers' Trade Union. Of course, this new organization will include only those trade union associations which can now or in the near future be transformed into unions, as, for instance, the printers', metal workers', tailors', shoemakers', carpenters', tobacco workers', textile workers', etc.., trade union associations. Even after the formation of trade unions, many trade union associations will remain in their present state, owing to the impossibility of being transformed into trade unions. These trade union associations will gradually, with the creation of favourable conditions, be united into trade unions. What the organization of trade unions in Bulgaria should be like, we shall see next time. II The question about the organization of the trade unions depends closely on their purpose, character and tasks. As is well known, the socialist trade union organizations, unlike the bourgeois ones, having as their special purpose to fight for better working conditions within the framework of capitalist exploitation, at the same time direct all their efforts, under the banner of the general political organization of the working class - social democracy, on the radical abolition of exploitation itself. They cannot confine themselves to their professional struggle on the basis of present conditions and transcend the limits of capitalist society, fully aware of the fact that so long as the latter exist: 1) there can be no genuine, lasting and general improvement in all walks of life of the working class, and 2) whatever improvements and reforms are achieved, the workers will remain a subordinate and exploited class with a very insecure existence. The reforms which are possible under the existing capitalist system cannot do away with the basic evils springing from this very system, such as anarchy in production, competition, unemployment, etc.., which cause so much suffering to the working class and to society as a whole. That is why, in fighting to restrict capitalist exploitation, the socialist trade unions take an active part, with all their forces and funds, in the general struggle of the working class for the destruction of hired slavery, for the freedom of labour, and the triumph of socialism. The fighting working class, however, is up against the whole bourgeoisie with its economic and political organizations, with its state and the latter's numerous organs. All this is strictly centralized and pursues one general goal: to consolidate the economic and political might of the bourgeoisie and to deal continuous blows to the emancipatory workers' movement so as to prevent it from fulfilling its historic tasks. For the purpose the bourgeoisie, through the centralized political power of the state, encroaches upon the rights of the working class, passes a whole series of laws restricting the workers' movement and subjects the workers' organizations and individual workers to persecuand violence, especially at the crucial moments in the class struggle. At the same time the bourgeoisie strives by means of demagogy and of its bankrupt science, as well as of certain concessions and reforms of minor significance, to corrupt and disorganize the working class, placing certain strata and parts of the latter under its influence, making use of them for its own factious and class aims and pitting them against the class conscious workers' movement. Under these circumstances, if the workers' movement is to be preserved, become stabilized and successfully fulfil its tasks and achieve its final goal, centralization is a necescondition, i. e. the workers must be organized under a common banner, their efforts must be directed to a common goal, they must lead a unanimous struggle, in other words, must be faced by the still more centralized forces of the working class, the centralized forces of the bourgeoisie. That is why the class-conscious proletariat in its general struggle sticks to the principle of centralization. In all the countries in which the trade union movement has developed under the influence of social democracy as a workers' class movement, the trade unions are organized on the principle of centralization. The centralized union conof workers from the whole country. It has a common constitution, a common treasury, a common central adminis etc.. In Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.., most of the strongest unions are centralized. Even in neighbouring Ser where the prevailing conditions are much like those in Bulgaria, a centralized form of organization in the trade unions has been adopted. The predominant trend in the development of trade union movement everywhere is that the more it becomes a class-conscious movement and the more deeply it is pervaded by a socialist spirit, the more the organization of the trade unions proceeds along centralist lines.

The predominant trend in the development of trade union movement everywhere is that the more it becomes a class-conscious movement and the more deeply it is pervaded by a socialist spirit, the more the organization of the trade unions proceeds along centralist lines. The historical experience of the trade union movement in the other countries shows that under a centralized trade union organization the workers' struggle is very powerful, because it is unified. And this is quite obvious. In a centralunion the workers of a given trade who have a common organization, a common principle, a common leadership, ;ire capable of quick and common action, directing their efall the time towards a common goal. In the centralunions every disunity and diversity of action of their separate parts are precluded, things of which the enemies of the working class usually take advantage. Hence, the more the forces of the individual bosses and the bosses' orof the entire bourgeoisie and its state are centralized to fight against the workers' movement, the more it becomes necessary for the workers to be organized in centralunions all their forces to be united into a single whole, and together, with the necessary speed, to direct their weaagainst their strong and well-organized enemies in the person of the present bourgeois state and the various capitalist organizations, trusts, etc.. Besides centralized unions, there are also in some countries federative unions. This form of organization is developed chiefly in France, owing to certain historical and political conditions. The federative union is formed by independent trade union associations, which have their own constitution, leadership and treasures. They unite on certain special terms, outside of which every trade union association preserves complete autonomy in its activity. At any moment the individual trade union association can leave the federation and even declare itself against it. That is why the federative union cannot be a sound and permanent organization like the centralized union. The forces of the federative union are limited and scattered. A common consciousness does not exist in its ranks, nor a strong discipline and one cannot rely on a sure unity of action at the crucial moments in the struggle. The federative form of organization is much to the liking of the bourgeoisie. And not in vain. If we examine the history of this form of organizain the trade union movement, we shall see that it was always the result of the efforts of the bourgeoisie to keep the workers' organizations in its own hands, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the lack of consciousness and the selfishness of the workers, who are not conscious of their common class interests and refuse to subordinate their personal and group interests to the general interests of the workers' move The idea of the federative organization of workers has the same origin as the idea of the neutrality of trade union associations. The bourgeoisie can most easily attain its anti-workers' goals in the workers' movement when the latter is neutral towards social democracy and has a federative organization, because then it cannot be effectively mobilized and make use in its struggle of all the forces which are at the disposal of the working class, and because the disunity, the autonomy of the individual trade union groups enables the bourgeoisie to mislead the weaker among them and to pit them against the federation itself and the entire emancipatory workers' movement. With the federative form of organization, as well as with the neutrality of the trade union associations, the bourgeoisie aims at transformthe trade union movement from a factor for the liberof the working class into a factor for the consolidation of the system of capitalist exploitation and, along with this, the hired slavery of the working class. In Bulgaria the trade union associations were not only formed under the influence of social democracy, but were in large measure its own creations. The bourgeoisie is only now beginning to think of organizing the workers into trade unions under its own banner. On the other hand, at their very inception the Bulgarian trade union associations had a socialist character, the character of class organizations following the example of the socialist trade union movein the ether countries. The trade union neutrality, preached by the different factions of the bourgeoisie suffered, complete fiasco. Especially now, under the new political conditions in our country, i. e. with the bourgeoisie pursuing a conscious, consistent class and reactionary policy with regard to the workers' movement, the utter inconsisof neutrality becomes obvious. Our trade union move which has hitherto successfully adopted the most modern and tested forms of organization and methods of struggle, would commit a big and unpardonable error if, under our existing historical and political conditions, it were to adopt a form of organization in its trade unions like the federative one, which would directly hamper the proper development and rapid consolidation of the movement and would expose it to the anti-worker endeavours of the bourgeoisie. Centralization is the mere necessary in our country also because of the weakness of the movement itself, which is in great need of strong central bodies, so as to be able to adsuccessfully in its individual weak parts. If placed on centralist principles, our trade unions will be able, by having greater financial means, moral forces and efficient bodies at their disposal, to carry on a fruitful propaganda and agitation in order to raise the class consciousness of their members and rid them of many prejudices and politfallacies. The centralized form is also quite in tune with the state of our production, Viable trade union associations cannot be formed in most of the trades in the provinces, because the number of workers who can be organized is insufficient for the purpose. And the federative organization, even assumit were not harmful, requires as a prerequisite the existof such trade union associations. It is clear, however, that the only and most suitable form of organization of trade unions in our country, bearing in mind our historical and political conditions and the expeof the West European trade union movement, is the centralized form. Only as centralized organizations will our trade unions develop properly and thus become powerful and militant trade union associations. How the organization of the unions will work out in practice can be clearly seen from the draft constitution drawn up by the Trade Union Committee and sent to all trade union associations for a thorough study. According to it, the trade union is simply an association which unites the workers of a given trade not only in one town, but on a nation-wide basis. Local groups will be formed in all towns which have at least seven members.

Local groups will be formed in all towns which have at least seven members. In towns where there are at least four members, proxies will be appointed, through whom the members will get into contact with the central management. Where there are less than four members, they will enrol directly at the central management. The draft constitution solves more or less successfully all difficulties which are encountered with regard to the manageand control of union affairs, the treasury, grants, strikes, etc.. But we shall dwell on this problem, as well as on the more substantial obstacles to the formation of trade unions in our country, in the next issue. III Some consider the small number of organized workers of the different trades as the foremost obstacle to the forof viable trade unions in Bulgaria. It is enough, however, to know the real state of affairs in order to underthat this consideration is groundless. Although the number of organized workers in the General Trade Union is still not very large, in some trades it is enough to set the foundations of trade unions. Thus, for instance, today there are about 290 metal workers, 300 textile workers, 150 tobacco workers, 400 tailors, 120 carpenters, 390 shoemakers and 140 printers organized in different trade union and mixed asso as well as in educational workers' groups. This number can be further increased, for it constitutes only four per cent of all workers engaged in the above trades. Regardof this, new categories of workers become more active and organized. Such are the stone-cutters, miners, the roadand railwaymen, etc.. Capitalist production is rapidly expanding in Bulgaria, large masses of workers concentrate in factories and other industrial enterprises and the conditions for a mass trade union movement are already at hand. On the other hand, the General Trade Union, after being exempted from the tasks entrusted to the different trade unions, will be able to devote more time and attention to the organization of the bulk of factory workers, men, women and children, and thus conditions will be created for the establishment of such trade unions, which are impossible at present not because there are not enough workers in a given industry, but because hitherto no planned agitation and propaganda has been carried out among them. A real obstacle to the formation of the unions constituted the question of their management. We all know that in the trade union there is more work and the tasks of the central management as leader, organizer, agitator and propagandist are more numerous and difficult than those of an ordinary management. For the successful implementation of these tasks wider knowledge and greater experience are needed than those which most of our trade union comrades have at present. Moreover, suitable comrades are needed for the local managements throughout the country and more particularly proxies wherever groups will not be formed. All this is indeed a serious obstacle, but this will in large measure be removed at the start and later will be comeliminated. In the first place, there are already sufficient numbers of trade union members who are rapidly being educated and who within a short time will be able to get satisfactorily prepared to take part in the management of the unions as secretaries, treasurers, etc.. The trade union committee, on its part, will also lend its full support and give the necessary instructions to the central managements. In the provinces the groups and proxies will rely on the cooperation of the local workers' councils and the managements of the educational workers' groups. The present sections of the mixed trade unions, when they become groups under the trade unions, will have the experience acquired before, which will stand them in good stead in their new work. Another obstacle is the question of the financial support of the unions. Their broader activity will call for paid offi secretaries, etc.., who, only if they devote themselves exclusively to union work, will be able to make use of all their forces and capacities for the development and consolidation of the union. Moreover, agencies for the jobless should be organized, trade union organs published and sums should be set aside for annual meetings, for a stepped up agitation and propaganda, etc.. All this would require substantial financial funds which, very naturally, the newlytrade unions will not have at first. It is wrong, however, to suppose that the unions will by all means have to start working from the very onset on such a wide scale. On the contrary, temporarily there will be no paid secretaor other officials. The work will be done without any remuneration, as it is now the case in the trade union asso The secretaries and treasurers will be given a sufficient number of assistants, their work will be organized more simply and in this way until the unions do not get stabilized financially they will fulfil their duties comparasuccessfully only during their free hours. As a transitional measure a sort of secretariat could later be organized in Sofia, maintained by the Party organization and the formunions and trade union associations. As a matter of fact, there should be one paid secretary and treasurer at the Sofia Party organization who could help in the office, administrative and organizational work of the unions and trade union associations. Once the unions develop and become stabilized, they will find the necessary means to maintheir own offices, secretaries, etc.. Likewise not all unions will from the very onset start publishing their own organs. At first they might use the general trade union organ Rabotnicheski Vestnik, leaflets and special circular letters, and later, once they become stabilized, they might have papers of their own. The question of membership fees also constltutes a serious obstacle.

The question of membership fees also constltutes a serious obstacle. The formation of the unions will lead to a certain increase in the membership fees of provincial workers who now pay very low membership fees in the mixed trade union associations, as well as in most other trade union associations. This increase will be difficult in most trades due to the low workers' wages. But here again the difficulties are surmountable. An average weekly membership fee will be determined which, without being too small, will not be too great a burden on the provincial workers whose wages are low. Since at present in certain places there is a big difference in the wages of workers belonging to the same trade in the various towns. two kinds of memfees can be introduced - whole and half. Workers receiving a salary of less than 40 leva a month shall pay, say, a half fee, and those receiving a higher monthly sala- a whole fee. Moreover, the increased number of union members will also swell the revenues of the unions, which will enable them to meet their financial obligations even when they have not very high but medium membership fees. On the other hand, the development of capitalist produc its influence on the crafts, as well as the struggle of the unions, will lead to ironing out the differences in working and living conditions throughout the country and will gradually enable all members to pay an equal membership fee with equal ease. We could point out also certain other minor obstacles with which we shall positively have to grapple when setting up trade unions, but these will be eliminated still more easily and that is why we shall not dwell on them here. The difficulties outlined above are indeed serious but, as we saw, they are all surmountable. They do not give anyone sufficient ground to conclude that the setting up of trade unions in Bulgaria is impossible at present or that it would be rash to proceed with their formation. Neither the one nor the other is true. These obstacles only go to show that the foundation of unions will be a tough job, the successful implementation of which calls for great efforts, attention and perseverence. This year's trade union congress is faced, therefore, with the task, after examining thoroughly the question of the formation of trade unions and the character of their organi of instructing the trade union associations along the following line: 1) to proceed to the formation of trade unions beginning with those trades in which conditions for this are the ripest, and 2) the unions thus formed to be centralaccording to the basic stipulations contained in the draft constitution drawn up by the trade union committee. The question of trade unions is a question of paramount imfor the organization of the trade union movement in our country and its proper development. That is why, in concluding our notes on it, we are far from assuming that it has been exhausted. This important organizational question will indeed be further elucidated at the congress and will more particularly be examined at the trade union conferences which, however, will still be insufficient. To explain it to all trade union members, its discussion will have to be continued after the congress, at meetings and in the press. According to us, it is particularly necessary that some of our more experienced comrades, who are acquainted with the history, organization and struggles of the trade unions in the other countries more closely and more in detail, give a fuller explanation. Once the question of trade unions in our country is thus elucidated and properly resolved, we shall be able boldly to proceed, side by side with the already formed prinunion, to the foundation of successive unions of meworkers, textile workers, tobacco workers, tailors, shoemak etc.., profoundly convinced that this modest beginning will contribute greatly to the building up of the magnificent edifice of the socialist trade union movement in Bulgaria. NOTES 1) On June 18, 1906, the miners of Pernik, headed by Georgi Dimitrov, went on strike, demnading among other things, the right to set up their own trade unions. They recieved nation-wide support from the workers, who organizaed meetings, rallies and collected strike funds. The 35-day strike achieved its main purpose - the Miners' Trade Union was founded, thus giving a strong impetus to the trade union movement in Bulgaria. 2) On December 20, 1906, the railwaymen spontaneously went on strike, the biggest until then in the annals of bulgaria. It was preceded by a petition to the National Assembly, signed by more than 3,000 workers and employees, but Prime Minister Dimiter Petkov refused to recieve the delegation. Instead, the government hastened to pass two laws, the one forbidding state workers to strike, and theother depriving them of their pension in case they take part in strikes, as well as of their right to organize in trade unions and to publish their own newspapers. The bourgeois opposition tried to take advantage of the 42-day strike to overthrow the Petkov Government. Railwaymen's Trade Union, under the guidance of the Party joined the strike but did not head it, confining itself to publishing a leaflet in which it exposed the demagogical policy of the bourgeois opposition parties. 3) Under the headline 'A Strike-Breaker Bloc' several bourgeois papers announced in February 1907 that the organizations of industrialists, tradesmen and craftsmen were negotiating to form a bloc for an all-out fight against strikes. A committee, composed of prominent members of these organizations, was set up for the purpose. 4) In 1898 during the general printing workers' strike in Paris, part of the owners of printing houses moved to the provinces where there were unorganized workers and in this way avoided accepting the demands of the workers. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Tasks of the Trade Unions First published:Communist Trade Union Library No. 3, February, 1920 Source:Dimitrov, Georgi, Selected Works Vol. 1, Sofia 1972 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo 1. The Trade Unions in the Past 2. The Trade Unions during the War 3. Results of the Trade Union Struggle 4. The New Conditions of Trade Union Struggle 5. The Struggle for political Power 6. Trade Union Neutrality 7. The New Tasks of the Trade Unions 8. Conclusion Notes 1. THE TRADE UNIONS IN THE PAST The trade unions sprang up during the early stage of capitalism as an organization aimed at improving the economic conditions of the workers within the framework of the existing capitalist system. At first they considered it as their task to fight only the individual capitalists in defence of the immediate professional workers' interests, without affecting the foundations of capitalist exploitation and without going beyond the pale of the capitalist industrial social organization. The abolition of competition among workers of a given trade, the restricted access of new workers to it and the resorting in extreme cases to strikes - those were the usual methods used by the old trade unions in order to obtain higher wages, shorter working hours and better working conditions. Failing to see the direct tie-up which exists between the condition of the workers in production and the political and state organization of capitalist society, those trade unions, a classical example of which we find in the former British trade unions, shut themselves up in their narrow professional shell, assiduously avoiding all participation in political battles and in the nation's politics in general, and confining themselves to questions pertaining to their trade. This, of course subsequently did not prevent them from being quite frequently used, directly or indirect for the political ends of the bourgeoisie. In spite of this innocuous character of the first trade unions the bourgeoisie and its state opposed them vehemently and tried by violence, repression and legalized bans to destroy them, sensing instinctively that they might develop into dangerous class organizations, into organs of the class struggle of the proletariat for the abolition of the capitalist system. The rabid acts of violence, repressions and bans against the trade unions, however, far from failed to produce the result expected by the bourgeoisie. A product of the very development of capitalism, having emerged in the struggle between capital and labour and having become a vital necessity for the workers in their defence against capitalist exploitation, the trade unions could not possibly be eradicated. The persecutions against them only intensified the existing class contradictions in capitalist society and revealed them more clearly to the masses of workers. Without the intervention of the trade unions, the strikes were more frequent, spontaneous and turbulent, inflicting immeasurable damage on production, threatening often even the personal safety and property of individual capitalists. It was precisely this that finally compelled the bourgeoisie to get reconciled to the existence of trade unions, while attempting to tame them and to turn them into organizations which would regulate relations between workers and capitalists and maintain a lasting peace in industry. The British bourgeoisie, which for long was complete master on the international market and owned the largest and richest colonies in the world, had ample possibilities, for the attainment of this goal, to mete out certain material benefits to the trade unions which comprised mainly skilled workers, the so-called labour aristocracy. This marked the beginning of the era of collective contracts, concluded between the trade unions and the capitalist organizations and by fixing by mutual consent the conditions and rates of wages and working time, thereby removing for a long time the danger of strikes at the enterprises and in the branches of industry affected by these collective contracts. The well-known wage scales were established, according to which wage rates were determined in accordance with the average price of prime necessities over a given period, the calculation, however, being usually so made as to keep wages at the lowest possible level. And in order to involve the workers and their trade unions more deeply in capitalist production, to harness them to it and make them eager collaborators of the capitalists in expending and stabilizing it so as to increase capitalist profit to the utmost, many enterprises resorted to profit-sharing schemes in the form of certain percentages and bonuses granted to the workers. Thus, the capitalists secured a maximum labour efficiency on the part of the workers, safeguarded themselves against their strikes, pocketed fat profits, while all that the workers got was the illusion of participating in the profits of the enterprises and, if what they cot was inadequate, of attributing it not to capitalist exploitation, not to the greed of the capitalists, not to the capitalist system of production itself and the way the goods produced were distributed, but to their own inadequacy in work, to their failure to put in the necessary efforts for the success of production. Adopting this industrial policy towards the workers, the capitalists strove to make them believe that an improvement of their condition could be achieved not through strikes, not through a struggle against capitalist exploitation, but solely through an increase of capital, through an expansion of production, through constantly growing capitalist profits. And the majority of trade unions in Great Britain and in several other countries, from bodies for the defence of the workers' interests and for fighting capitalism, were turned into Vehicles for the establishment of equilibrium and peace in capitalist production and into an instrument of the nation's capitalists whereby to keep the workers' masses in a state of subordination and bondage, to divert them from the road of the class proletarian struggle and ever to oppose them to the emancipatory workers' revolution. And when in the middle of the last century, after the founding of the First Socialist International 1) and the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, the proletariat began rapidly to organize itself as a class of its own and the trade union movement increasingly adopted Marx's view to the effect that trade unions should not confine themselves to a partisan war against individual capitalists and to the Sisyphean task of lopping off the branches without touching the trunk of capitalist exploitation but should become schools of socialism and strive to abolish capitalism itself by playing a prime role in the civil war for its downfall, the bourgeoisie adopted a long-term and systematic policy of bribing and corrupting the trade union leaders and the numerous trade union bureaucracy, in order to keep the trade union movement under its influence.

And when in the middle of the last century, after the founding of the First Socialist International 1) and the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, the proletariat began rapidly to organize itself as a class of its own and the trade union movement increasingly adopted Marx's view to the effect that trade unions should not confine themselves to a partisan war against individual capitalists and to the Sisyphean task of lopping off the branches without touching the trunk of capitalist exploitation but should become schools of socialism and strive to abolish capitalism itself by playing a prime role in the civil war for its downfall, the bourgeoisie adopted a long-term and systematic policy of bribing and corrupting the trade union leaders and the numerous trade union bureaucracy, in order to keep the trade union movement under its influence. In its press it flattered the trade union leaders as being intelligent and talented workers' representatives, enticed them to come to its sumptuous banquets, courted them in various ways, granted them all sorts of benefits, helped them to enter parliament and kept them firmly in its hands. It must be admitted that in this way the bourgeoisie quite often succeeded in attaining its goal and in keeping many of the trade unions under its direct or indirect control, of which circumstance it made the widest possible use, in particular during the World War. 2. THE TRADE UNIONS DURING THE WAR Standing on the positions of their nation's capitalists, the majority of British trade unions, the oldest and strong-est trade union organizations, saw in the war the only means whereby industry in Great Britain would be able to pre-serve its dominant position on the world market now threat-ened by rising and aggressive German capitalism, and to maintain its sway over India and the other rich colonies, which supplied it with raw materials and vast markets for its products. And the British trade unions placed themselves at the complete service of the imperialist and bellicose policy of their own bourgeoisie. They attempted to stop all strikes, prolonged the expiring terms of all collective contracts and strove to ensure the widest possible development of the war industry. They gave a great number of volunteers from among their midst and opened special offices for the recruitment of volunteers for the British Army and, when compulsory military service was introduced in Great Britain where it had never existed in the past, they not only did not oppose it, but even enthusiastically applauded this initiative of Lloyd George's as a 'fine' means of forever crushing 'Prussian militarism.' The German trade unions, on their part, headed by the notorious social-traitor Legien and by the numerous staff of the corrupt workers' bureaucracy, announced that the war of German imperialism against 'perfidious Albion' (England) was at the same time a war for the existence of the working class in Germany, that if the latter were defeated in this war, even the few colonies which she possessed corn pared with Great Britain would be taken away from her, that German industry would be deprived of the raw materials which it needed, its roads to the international markets would be blocked and it would be brought to complete disaster and, together with it, the working class would be reduced to utter misery and unprecedented pauperism and Germany - as Lenin liked to put it - 'instead of exporting goods, would be exporting live men its manpower.' The General Trade Union Committee 2) addressed an ardent appeal to the workers in industry and in the Army, urging them to give their all-round support to 'the sacred defensive war' of Kaiser Wilhelm 3) and the German imperialists, and demanding of the trade unions to make the workers refrain from all strikes, especially in the field of mining and the war industries. That is how 'civil peace' between the working class and the imperialist bourgeoisie was solemnly proclaimed. At the very moment when the German capitalists and their joint-stock companies were pocketing billions of profits, when the gold rain of the war was pouring into their safes, the German proletarians were shedding their blood on the battlefields or working day and night in industry for the 'defence of the fatherland', while their trade unions invested their millions in cash (collected over decades in workers' pennies for fighting capitalist exploitation) in state loans to finance the perfidious war. Accompanying the singing of the rabid hymn of the German imperialists and militarists 'Deutschland, Deutschland fiber alles', 4) the big trade union leaders published a special book, containing articles by the secretaries of the various unions who, with figures relating to their production branches, endeavoured to prove the necessity of Germany's holding Out to the end in the war and of her ernerging as complete victor, proudly declaring that this would inevitably he achieved, because the war on the part of Germany was a war which the working class was waging for its existence and its future happiness. They enthusiastically- painted the bright prospects of a military victory for the German workers who would be able freely to travel around the whole world, receiving high wages and enjoying the greatest prosperity!... At the same time Gompers's AFL 5) was carrying on a very intensive propaganda for America's intervention in the war and, when this intervention became a fact, mobilized all its forces in the service of the American millionaires and corporations. Even the French trade unions which, under the influence of anarcho-syndicalism 6), were considered extreme and irreconcilable enemies of capitalism, in their bulk committed themselves, for similar reasons, to the service of French financial capital in the war, furled their banners and wholeheartedly embraced the policy of 'civil peace'. Without dwelling on the betrayal of the trade unions in the other belligerent nations, except for those in Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia and Rumania which remained completely loyal to the working class and to international proletarian solidarity, we can boldly assert today that if the capitalists in the two warring blocs were able to kindle the holocaust of the world war and drive their peoples into it, if they succeeded in manifesting such titanic forces during its four-year duration, this was due primarily to the fact that they, managed in good time to win over the trade unions which had a membership of many millions to their imperialist cause, and place them at the service of their military policy of conquest.

The old opportunism and auto-syndicalism in the trade union movement; the policy of confining their activity to reforms within the capitalist system; the professional narrow-mindedness, short-sightedness and corruption of the trade union bureaucracy; the education of the workers' masses in the trade unions in a spirit of petty, momentary gains along the road of mutual understanding with the capitalists - all this developed and was brilliantly manifested during the war in the form of a labour imperialism which rent asunder the international solidarity of the proletariat and turned the workers in the different countries into deadly enemies who killed each other for the cause of their common enemy - world capital. This, however, proves the complete bankruptcy of the dominant opportunist policy in the trade union movement in most countries, laying bare before the world proletariat and its workers' organizations with absolute clarity the only salutary road - the road of intransigent class struggle, along which, we are glad to say, our own trade unions have been undeviatingly marching from the day of their foundation until today. 3. RESULTS OF THE TRADE UNIONS STRUGGLE With the trade methods of struggle, the unions in the different countries did, indeed, achieve quite a few results. The despotic arbitrariness of the boss towards the workers at the enterprises was restricted. The workers won the right to intervene, through their trade unions, in the settlement of relations between labour and capital. A rise in the average wage level was also obtained as compared with the worker's former exceedingly miserable conditions, as well as shorter working hours, which in the past the capitalists could freely prolong to the physically utmost possible limits. Moreover, the sums spent by the trade unions during periods of unemployment not only alleviate the heavy lot of the unemployed, but also help to avoid intense competition between unemployed and employed, thus preventing a lowering of wages and the former unrestricted deterioration of general working conditions. Of course, the benefits derived from the struggle of the trade unions usually go to the skilled and semi-skilled workers, who are those precisely in a position to establish strong trade unions, while the mass of unskilled, general workers enjoy, these benefits but little. How insignificant, in general however, are the results obtained by trade unions over many years of effort and struggle can be clearly seen from the fact that even in the most highly developed capitalist countries, such as Great Britain, Germany and America, the wage rates prior to the war always ranged about the minimum necessary for the workers' elementary sustenance, while the working day in most branches of industry was ten, and only here and there eight hours. The gains of the trade union struggle are, moreover, not only insufficient from the viewpoint of the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the working class; they are also precarious. The capitalists have at their disposal various means of counteracting the efforts of the trade unions, aimed at improving labour conditions, as well as at divesting them of the fruits of their struggle. The general policy of the state, as well as of the conditions in which capitalist production is developing, facilitates their task in this respect. Thus, they take advantage, above all, of the possibilities offered them by technical progress, introducing and extending the use of women and children in production. These, owing to their smaller power of resistance and lower susceptibility to organization, usually compete with the adult workers and tend to depress working conditions. For the same purpose the capitalists use the workers from the backward regions and countries whose culture is lower, as well as the helpless arid ruined urban and rural petty bourgeois who, owing to their restricted means, are ready to work on terms inferior to those which the trade unions have won. Compelled to reduce the working day, the capitalists now manage to draw from the workers, even during the shorter working hours, as much of their vital force as before, through piece work and the different special systems of utilizing every movement of the worker's body while he is at work. A case in point is the well-known American system, known as the Taylor system, which, however, inevitably leads to the rapid physical degeneration of workers and to a shortening of their capacity for work. Finally, what the trade unions manage to gain through their professional struggle in the way of higher wages, is by and large taken away from them the next moment as a consequence of the general capitalist policy and, in particular, the introduction and increase of indirect taxes, of import duties and a number of similar means which tend to raise the cost of living. All these special conditions of trade union struggle have long ago suggested to the more advanced and farsighted elements among the working class that this struggle should net be waged in an isolated way, that it should be co-ordinated with the general political struggle of the proletariat, that a strike in production should be combined with the ballot and the struggle in parliament, as well as with all forms of mass workers' action, that in a word, the trade union struggle become a component of the entire class struggle of the proletariat. And indeed, wherever this has been applied in practice, the trade union struggle has been more successful and surer. BLit, to be true to historical truth, it must be admitted that, even when the struggle of the trade unions is thus combined, it's limits and chances of success do not change substantially. Even then, its results, though substantially greater and surer, still remain insufficient and precarious. They do not create for the working class in capitalist society the possibility of living well and like cultured men, nor do they even substantially decrease the material and social misery in which it lives. All improvements obtained through strikes, on the one hand, and through labour protection laws, on the other, as long as political power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, cannot exceed the limits of a given amount of capitalist profit, as otherwise the very existence of capitalist industry ,would be impossible. Surveying today the whole history of the struggle of the trade unions, we can see that its only essential and lasting result consists in that the workers have succeeded in resisting the utter exhaustion of their vital forces and in safeguarding themselves against utter physical and moral degeneration to which capitalism is irresistibly pushing them.

Surveying today the whole history of the struggle of the trade unions, we can see that its only essential and lasting result consists in that the workers have succeeded in resisting the utter exhaustion of their vital forces and in safeguarding themselves against utter physical and moral degeneration to which capitalism is irresistibly pushing them. The trade unions, however, are not in a position to impose sufficient and lasting improvement which would enable the workers' masses to lead a more cultural and happier life for a long period. 4. THE NEW CONDITIONS OF TRADE UNION STRUGGLE The World War created conditions which further impede the struggle of the trade unions and substantially lower even the chances of obtaining practical results which it had prior to the war. First of all, it nullified most of the previous gains in the working conditions of all the belligerent, and even of neutral nations. Everywhere wages far from correspond to the colossal rise in the cost of living. There is a precipice between the nominal and the real wage, i. c. its actual purchasing power. There is an unprecedented rise in the price of the necessities of life and a shortage of them, an acute housing crisis and unprecedented misery for the working masses in the defeated as well as in the victorious countries. Moreover, the war radically upset all economic life. For four years, almost 45 million people, instead of producing goods, were engaged in a terrible holocaust of destruction. More than 20 million producers of goods left their lives on the battlefields or were disabled, i.e. deprived of their former capacity for work. Flourishing regions in the world were devastated. All reserves of raw materials and foods were swallowed up by the greedy war monster. Vast spaces of land remained uncultivated. Three-quarters of the farm animals were killed. The workers who returned from the battlefields are physically exhausted and morally upset Trade has been completely disorganized. The former relations between the different economic and industrial regions for the exchange of raw materials and finished goods have been discontinued. The means of communication (railroad, shipping and other communications) have been worn out, etc. As a result of this disorganization of economic life, many branches of industry today are. at a standstill, and others have altogether ceased to function. Mass unemploy-ment is assuming unprecedented proportions in all countries ofthe world. Today, in the period of liquidation of the World War, which in effect is no liquidation at all but merely a passing over of the war into another stage - into the stage of all imperialist war against the rising international proletarian revolution, capitalism has proved incapable of securing peace among nations, of restoring production and securing the elementary survival of the masses. Crushed by the weight of its insoluble internal contradictions, its only concern now is to save itself from the revolution, resorting for this purpose to civil war and thereby fanning still further the chaos in production and economic fife and infinitely increasing the sufferings of its own people. On the other hand, the World War irretrievably ushered in the epoch of the international proletarian revolution. We see its beginning flow in Soviet Russia. The revolutionary movements which have already started in Germany, Austria and Hungary, as well as the intensified undercurrents in Italy, France and Great Britain, whose echo reaches our ears from time to time, testify to its early spread to other countries as well. Anarchy in economic life, disorganization in production accompanied by mass unemployment and misery are still further heightened by the civil war, whereby the bourgeoisie is trying in vain.

Anarchy in economic life, disorganization in production accompanied by mass unemployment and misery are still further heightened by the civil war, whereby the bourgeoisie is trying in vain. to retain its shaken supremacy. There are no longer any prospects for a return to prewar conditions. The war itself accelerated and revealed the complete bankruptcy of the capitalist system of production and trade, of social organization and state government. History now confronts working mankind with the dilemma: either to pass over to new forms of production and social organization or to perish under the regime of imperialist barbarity. The restoration of economic life today is possible only along socialist lines, i.e. without the capitalists and against them. But precisely under these new conditions, the efforts of the trade unions to improve the conditions of the workers even back to the pre-war level have become quite hopeless and helpless. Within the framework of the capitalist system this is excluded. For its attainment, the first condition to break and go beyond this framework. And indeed, how will the trade unions be able to obtain the improvements needed by the workers when economic life today is so upset, when there is such mass unemployment and when the strong and extremely obdurate financial capitalists, whom the war even in our small backward country, raised to the position of absolute rulers and lords in economic life, are inclined to see in every movement for higher wages and shorter working hours a revolutionary action, aimed directly at the overthrow of capitalist rule? What labour laws of a nature to expand and consolidate the gains of the trade union struggle could be enacted by the present-day bourgeois state, which is writhing under billions of war debts and is financially bankrupt? It is, precisely these peculiar conditions in the trade union struggle at the present-day imperialist stage of capitalism which confront the proletariat and, in particular, its trade unions with the immediate task of doing away with the capitalist system and the ensuing exploitation of labour. The moment is setting in when instead of endeavouring through the trade union struggle slowly and gradually to improve the workers' condition within the limits of capitalist production, production itself has to pass into the hands of the proletariat so as to be organized not for capitalist profit and in favour of a minority, as it is today, but to meet the needs of the working majority and for the general prosperity, of those who work. 5. THE STRUGGLE FOR POLITICAL POWER But it is precisely, for this reason that at the present historical moment the struggle for political power by the proletariat comes to the fore and all other efforts and tasks of the workers' organizations, including the trade unions, must be co-ordinated with this struggle and be completely subordinated to it. For the replacement of one social and production system by another is possible only by means of political power. The abolition of capitalist exploitation, which is today the immediate task of the trade unions, can be achieved only if the proletariat wrests power from the hands of the ruling bourgeoisie and establishes a proletarian dictatorship exercised by the workers' councils. But if the strike is the strongest weapon of the trade unions for gaining improvements in production, now, when it is a question of seizing political power and proceeding to a radical reconstruction of production and society, not the strike, even in the form of a mass political strike, will settle the issue, but the proletarian revolution. Instead of a struggle with hands crossed by different groups and the masses of workers, we have to have a struggle waged by the whole proletariat, which it will terminate with arms in hand! To rally the masses, to educate arid prepare them for this struggle, while they themselves take a most active part in it under the leadership of the Communist Party, is today the foremost task of the trade unions, if they wish to remain true to the interests of the proletariat and to their own role of class proletarian organizations. 6. TRADE UNION NEUTRALITY In this factual and historical state of affairs, is it necessary to prove in detail that there is no room today for any so-called political neutrality - the neutrality of the trade unions with regard to political parties and political struggles? Trade union neutrality has always been a purely bourgeois idea. Under the guise of political neutrality, the bourgeoisie and its agents in the workers' movement (the right-wing socialists and the various 'workers' friends' arid social-reformers) have attempted to detach the trade unions from the class struggle of the proletariat and turn them into tools for the maintenance of capitalist rule. In fact, never and in no country have the trade unions been neutral. The whole history of the workers' movement bears this out. The trade unions have always either remained true to the proletarian cause and have resolutely fought against capitalism, taking part in some way or other in the political struggles in favour of the proletariat, or have directly or indirectly, in one form or another, been at the service of the bourgeoisie, letting the bourgeois parties use them in their internecine struggles for the plums derived from power, and often even in their fight against the emancipatory movement of the proletariat itself What in fact the neutrality of the trade unions amounts to was best seen during the World War, when the 'neutral' and 'free' trade unions in Germany, France, Great Britain and America committed their treason towards the cause of proletarian liberation, by taking part with might and main in the bellicose imperialist policy of their own Capitalist classes. And indeed, call the trade unions be neutral in the struggle between labour and capital, in which by their very nature they are directly involved? Still less is it possible today, when class contradictions have reached their peak, when the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are pitted against each other as class against class, when the period of the international proletarian revolution has been ushered in, to speak about trade union neutrality.

Still less is it possible today, when class contradictions have reached their peak, when the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are pitted against each other as class against class, when the period of the international proletarian revolution has been ushered in, to speak about trade union neutrality. For the trade unions to be neutral today towards the political class party of the proletariat means for them to be dependent on the bourgeoisie and to be serving some of bourgeois parties. For the trade unions to be neutral to the workers' revolution which is being implemented means that they will be helping the bourgeois counter-revolution. Either with labour - against capital; or with capital against labour! Either on the side of the revolution, or in tile camp of the counter-revolution! There is no middle road! And in this connexion the form in which this takes place is of absolutely no significance; what counts is the essence of the matter The fact that certain trade unions are formally considered as neutral and independent means absolutely nothing in fact they cannot be such, and will inevitably go either to the one or to the other side, to the one or to the other of the two fighting camps. The historical development of the proletarian class struggle has not only refuted all bourgeois fallacies about trade union neutrality and independence towards the political organization and struggle of the proletariat, but also imposes today a still closer unity between the trade unions and the Communist Party, a complete organic unity between the professional and political struggles of the proletariat for the overthrow of capitalism, the setting up of a proletarian dictatorship and the achievement of communism. 7. THE NEW TASKS OF THE TRADE UNIONS The example set to us by Soviet Russia where the proletariat has now been exercising its dictatorship for a year and a half and is implementing the country's socialist reconstruction, has shown clearly that the trade unions do not end their historical role and do not cease to exist even when the proletariat has succeeded, through its revolution in seizing political power. On the contrary, precisely during this transitional period of proletarian dictatorship - from the overthrow of the bourgeoisie to the achievement of communism - the trade unions are called upon to play no less important role. Of course, their role now is profoundly different from what they were doing in the period of capitalist production and under bourgeois rule. Here they cease to be organizations of the proletariat against capitalist exploitation, because the capitalists have been removed from production or have been rendered absolutely harmless under the regime of proletarian dictatorship. True, during this transitional period the trade unions will again continue to defend the workers, but no longer through strikes but through the organized influence of Soviet power. Together with the proletariat, the trade unions themselves, as it were, have come to power i.e. become part of the government, organs of Soviet government. The trade unions will further have to organize the control and distribution of the work force in the different branches of production, under the general plan worked out by the Soviet Government for the whole nation's economy. In agreement with the Soviet economic bodies, tile trade unions will be settling questions referring to the wages and conditions of workers in the different enterprises, will maintain labour discipline in them and work for a maximum increase in labour productivity. The elaboration of the laws, the fixing of working hours wages, hygienic working conditions, against employment accidents, sickness, old age, etc., as well as the application of these laws will be another important function of the trade unions. Theirs will also he the task of taking care of general and professional education, necessary for the training of a numerous workers' technical intelligentsia, without which neither the complete regulation of production, nor its nationalization and subsequent organization along socialist lines is conceivable. And, most important of all, the trade unions will be charged with the task of organizing the workers' control over production which will exist until complete socialization is achieved, and of taking into their own hands, as organs of Soviet rule, in conjunction with the other economic bodies, tile organization and management of production and the country's entire economic life. After the conquest of political power by the proletariat, the trade unions will transfer the centre of their activity to the sphere of the organization of economic life. They will have to prepare the proletariat for the role of organizer of production in the transition from private capitalist monopoly to state monopoly, and from the latter to the socialist organization of economic life and to complete communism. It will be no exaggeration if we say that without the accomplishment of these exceedingly important tasks oil the part of trade unions, neither a complete nor lasting triumph of the workers' revolution is possible, nor the achievement of communism. 8. CONCLUSION The functions of the trade unions prior to the revolution, during the revolution, as well as afterwards during the period of proletarian dictatorship - so important and so complex - imperatively demand that the Bulgarian trade unions become genuine mass organizations in composition and in their ties with the broad workers' masses, restoring the complete trade union unity, and that these masses being firmly welded together, deeply imbued with the ideas and spirit of communism, be fully prepared for the communist revolution and the organized construction of life in the new society. Our road is indeed not a smooth one. We are still faced with many hard tests.

We are still faced with many hard tests. The great cause to the service of which we have voluntarily dedicated ourselves, however, deserves the utmost efforts and sacrifices on our part. Let us, therefore, make them without any hesitation, profoundly convinced of the inevitable triumph of the international proletarian revolution and of the fact that all mankind will one day be basking in the sun of communism, which is already shining in the East, quite close to Lis, over vast Russia peopled with many millions of men, with its wonderful purple rays calling to a new life! NOTES 1) International, or International Workers' Association, headed by Karl Marx, was founded in 1864.In the declaration of its principles, which became known under the name of Constitutive Manifesto, Marx developed the ideas which had already been exposed in the Communist Manifesto: the International was to be a class organization of the proletariat, fighting for the victory of socialism by wrestling political power from the ruling classes. 2) A General Trade Union Congress was called in Halberstadt om March 14-18, 1892 after the repeat of the exceptional laws against the German socialists. There a general trade union committee under the presidency of Karl Legien was elected, which became the centre of the German trade union movement, as well as a focus of opportunism. The German trade unions pursued a policy of so-called neutrality and were called 'free' trade unions. 3) Wilhelm II (1859-1941) - the last German Emperor and Prussian King, a medicore and narrow-minded politician, known for his pompous and megalomaniacal speeches reflecting the aggressive foreign policy of German imperialism. Compelled to abdicate and flee to Holland (November 9, 1918) after the November Revolution in Germany, Wilhelm II later expressed his solidarity with the nazis and in 1940 hailed the invasion of Holland by Hitler's armies. 4) Germany, Germany above all 5) The American Federation of Labour (AFL), founded in 1881, compromising mainly the workers' aristocracy under a mercenary clique of revolutionary leaders, such as Gompers up to 1925 (whom Lenin compared to Zubatov), Green and Carey, adopted a hostile attitude to the Russian Revolution. Refusing to join the World Trade Union Federation, it is actively working to split the world trade union movement. 6) Anarcho-syndicalism or self-syndicalism - an anarchistic current sprung up in the 80's, which considered trade unions as the only real class organizations, believed solely in the strike weapon as the natural form of class struggle, and was opposed to the political struggle of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Flourishing at the turn of the century, especially in France, Italy and Spain, this current began to decline after the Russian Revolution. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov's Youth Against Facism Delivered: September 25, 1935 Transcribed: Zodiac HTML Markup: Brian Baggins Speech at the Opening of the Sixth Congress of the Young Communist International COMRADES, I am bringing you warm greetings from the Executive Committee of the Communist International. No dangers that beset your long and arduous road, no fascist or police cordons were able to prevent you from gathering in the Red proletarian capital for the purpose of discussing, in a friendly and amicable way, like the international family that you are, the tasks of uniting the forces of the young generation of toilers. You are a congress of the revolutionary youth, a congress of strength and courage. How many of the best and most exemplary fighters in the cause of the working youth have assembled at your congress! It is with pride and affection that I welcome, through you, in the name of the older revolutionary generation, the glorious young guard of the working people of the whole world. Comrades, a month ago the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International completed its work in this hall where you are assembled today. The Congress, led by the brilliant teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, thoroughly discussed all the main problems of the international labor movement and mapped out the road that must be taken to overcome the split in this movement, and to weld together the forces of the toilers in the struggle against exploiters and oppressors, against fascism and war. The Congress of the Communist International paid particular attention to the youth movement as one of the principal problems of the international revolutionary movement, understanding full well that the victory of the class struggle of the working people depends upon the correct and successful development of the youth movement, upon its assuming a sweeping mass character. Fascism has wreaked bestial vengeance upon the best fighters of the revolutionary youth. At the same time it is making every effort to adapt its putrid demagogy to the moods of the wide mass of the youth, and to take advantage of the growing militant activity of the youth for its own reactionary ends, in order to convert it into a prop of dying capitalism. Depriving the young generation of working people of all rights, the fascist governments militarize the entire youth, and try to train from their ranks obedient slaves of finance capital in civil as well as imperialist war. What can we place in opposition to fascism and the threat of imperialist war, which has become particularly acute in view of the preparations being made by Italian fascism to attack Ethiopia and the growing aggression of German fascism? We can and must place in opposition to it the union of all anti-fascist forces and, first and foremost, the union of all the forces of the young generation of working people, at the same time enhancing a thousandfold the role and activity of the youth in the struggle of the working class for its own interests, for its own cause. Let the entire activity of the Congress of the Young Communist International be devoted to the attainment of this immediate and principal goal. On the basis of the experience you already have gained, and the decisions of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, we expect you to be able to find the proper ways and means of accomplishing the most important task of your movement, the task of uniting the forces of the entire non-fascist youth, and, first and foremost, of the working class youth, the task of achieving unity with the socialist youth. This, however, cannot be achieved if the Young Communist Leagues keep on trying, as they have done hitherto, to construct their organizations as if they were Communist Parties of the youth; nor will this be possible if they are content, as heretofore, to lead the secluded life of sectarians isolated from the masses. The whole anti-fascist youth is interested in uniting and organizing its forces. Therefore you, comrades, must find such ways, forms and methods of work as will assure the formation, in the capitalist countries, of a new type of mass youth organizations, to which no vital interest of the working youth will be alien, organizations which, without copying the Party, will fight for all the interests of the youth and will bring up the youth in the spirit of the class struggle and proletarian internationalism, in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. This requires that the Congress should very seriously check up and reappraise the work of the Young Communist Leagues, for the purpose of actually achieving their reorganization and the fearless removal of everything that obstructs the development of mass work and establishment of the united front and unity of the youth. We expect the Young Communist International to build up its activity in such a manner as to weld and unite all trade union, cultural, educational and sports organizations of the working youth, all revolutionary, national-revolutionary, national-liberation and anti-fascist youth organizations, for the struggle against fascism and war, for the rights of the young generation. We note with great pleasure that our young comrades in France and the United States have actively joined the mass movement for a united front of the youth which is so successfully developing, and have already achieved in this sphere successes which hold out great promises. All sections of the Young Communist International should profit by this experience of the French and American comrades. In many countries the Communist and Socialist youth are coming closer and closer together. A striking example of this is the presence, at this Congress of the Young Communist International, of representatives of not only the Communist but also the Socialist youth of Spain. Therefore, comrades, follow boldly the course of uniting with the Socialist youth and of forming joint and united organizations with it. Follow boldly the course of uniting all forces of the anti-fascist youth! The Executive Committee of the Communist International will encourage and support in every way your initiative and activity in the fight for unity and for all the vital interests of the working youth. The millions of young men and women for whom capitalist society has created impossible conditions of existence, who are either outside any organization at all or are in organizations led by the class enemy, are your brothers and sisters, whom you can and must win over to the side of socialism by your persistent work. Don't wait until unity between the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties and other organizations of the working class has been reached. Be bold, independent and full of initiative! You are the Congress of the most active, the most self-sacrificing section of the young generation of today.

You cannot stand aside from the movement in favor of unity which is growing and strengthening in the ranks of the working class. You do not have to wait like the Socialist Youth International for permission "from above" before you can support the united front movement and the union of the toiling youth in one organization. In the name of the Executive Committee of the Communist International I declare that the youth united in the ranks of the Young Communist International enjoys and will continue to enjoy every opportunity of independently developing its revolutionary movement and solving the problems of this movement. Communists in youth organizations must be able to work in such a way as to influence the decisions of these organizations by convincing their members, and not by issuing orders in the name of the Party. I call to mind the words of the great Lenin which form the basis for the relations between the Communist International and the youth and its organizations: Frequently the middle-aged and the aged do not know how to approach the youth in the proper way, for, necessarily, the youth must come to socialism in a different way, by other paths, in other forms, in other circumstances than their fathers. Incidentally, this is why we must be decidedly in favor of the organizational independence of the Youth League, not only because the opportunists fear this independence, but because of the very nature of the case; for unless they have complete independence, the youth will be unable either to train good Socialists from their midst or prepare themselves to lead socialism forward. [V. I. Lenin, Collected Works Volume 23, page 164] Comrades, you must study, study, while you fight. Combine your day-to-day practical activities with a profound study of the original sources of Marxism-Leninism, for without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice. Be exemplary, staunch and valiant fighters against fascism, against capitalism. Hold aloft the banner of the liberation of humanity from capitalist slavery, the banner of the Communist International. Rally the young generation of working people of the whole world around this banner. This banner of the greatest victories already waves over one-sixth of the globe and it will triumph all over the world! [Cheers! Audience breaks into songs.] Dimitrov Internet Archive Reference Archive

Georgi Dimitrov versus Göbbels Letters, writings and courtroom hearings Written: Between March 1933 and February 1934 Source: Georgi Dimitrov Selected Works, Volume 1, pp. 313 - 399 First Published: Dimitrov Works vol. 9, Sofia 1960 Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2001 Transcription/Markup: Mathias Bismo Transcriber's comments Court Hearings From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on September 26, 1933Interrogation of the Accused van der Lubbe From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on October 11, 1933 From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on October 23, 1933From the Interrogation of Expert Josse From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on October 31, 1933Interrogation of Witness Lebermann From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on November 4, 1933Interrogation of Witness Göring From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on November 8, 1933Questions to Göbbels From the Verbatim Report of the Court Session on November 13, 1933Interrogation of Witness Grave Minutes of Speech before the Court Letters Statement to the Police Inquiring MagistratesMarch 20 1933 To the Examining MagistrateMay 4 1933 To Dr. Paul TeichertAugust 1 1933 To Mr. BüngerAugust 28 1933 To Dr. Paul TeichertSeptember 6 1933 To Dr. Bünger, President of the 4th Penal Department of the Supreme CourtSeptember 28 1933 To Dr. Bünger, President of the 4th Penal Department of the Supreme CourtOctober 12 1933 To Dr. Bünger, President of the 4th Penal Department of the Supreme CourtNovember 16 1933 To the Minister of Home Affairs Dr. FrickFebruary 7 1934 Other Documents Dimitrov's Notes for His First Speech in CourtSeptember 25 1933 Remarks on the SentenceDecember 23 1933 An Interview with DimitrovFebruary 7 1934 Interview with Representatives of the Soviet and Foreign PressFebruary 27 1934 My Tactics in Court Dimitrov Archive

Georgi Dimitrov The Significance of the Second Balkan Conference First Published: 1915 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 77, July 12. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 49-52 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 Speech at a public meeting in Sofia, July 9, 1915 The Second Balkan Social Democratic Conference in Bucharest marked a further step along the road towards the triumph of the Balkan Federative Republic which was started in 1909 at the First Balkan Social Democratic Conference in Belgrade. The latter had only drawn up and formulated the fundamental principles on the unity and common strugof the Social Democratic Parties in the Balkan states and entrusted the practical organization of this common struggle to a second conference. Unfortunately, however, the work successfully begun at Belgrade had to be suspended for a certain time owing to the political developments and the Balkan Wars. Today we have to thank primarily the fraternal Rumanian Party for the organization of the Second Balkan Social-Democratic Conference in Bucharest, because it not only assumed the initiative in convening this Conference, but also took great pains to guarantee its full success. The Bucharest Conference elucidated, developed, reaffirmed and extended the fundamental principles laid down at the Belgrade Conference. Its main task, however, was to establish the necessary organizational forms, ways and means in the fight of the Balkan Social Democrats for the establishment of a Balkan Federative Republic.1) The Second Balkan Social-Democratic Conference dewith the absolute unanimity all the participating delegates that the workers' Social-democratic Parties and the trade union associations of the Balkan states should form a Balkan Workers' Social Democratic Federation with one Inter-Balkan Bureau composed of two delegates per country, one from the Party, and the other from the Trade Union association, with an executive committee elected by the Workers' Social Democratic Party and the general Trade Union in Rumania. Instead of individual Social-democratic Parties, hitherto acting separately and without coordination, a united Balkan Social Democracy was formed. The first major practical step for the unification of the Balkan nations has been made by unifying the socialist proletariat in Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece into one Balkan Social Democratic Federation. And this federation of the Balkan Social Democratic Parties and trade union associations is being formed not only because it is quite obvious that only artificial boundaries divide the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and that they are bound by the same fate, but because without this organization it is impossible to carry out an effective struggle for the realization of a Balkan Federative Republic, in which all the Balkan peoples can find their only true salvation. Guided by the principle that a single Social-democratParty and a single trade union association per country should join it, the Balkan Social-democratic Federation will endeavour to attract the social-democratic parties which subsequently are to be formed in Turkey, Albania and Montenegro into its ranks, provided they adopt the principles of international revolutionary socialism. The Balkan Social-democratic Federation will be repreat the International Socialist Bureau2) and the intercongresses by a single Balkan delegation in which the Federative Social-democratic Parties and trade unions will be equally represented. The Conference entrusts the executive committee with the task of starting the publication of a Balkan Socialist Bulletin in French and German to keep the international proletariat informed on the situation in the Balkans and the struggle for a Balkan Federative Republic; the federated parties and trade unions assume the obligation to render each other assistance by exchanging delegates to their congrsses, orators at their meetings, newspapers and various publications, etc.. May Day is set as a day of a common demonstration in all countries in favour of the Balkan Federative Republic. The Inter-Balkan Bureau will edit special pamphlets on the Balkan question and the struggle for a Balkan Feder ative Republic, to be published in all the Balkan languages. Without listing other points of detail in the decisions of the Conference (those who are interested may read them in the Rabotnicheski Vestnik), you can see the great useful ness of the newly-established Balkan Social-Democratic Federation for the Balkan proletariat. But the Bucharest Conference had to take a stand also on the present war and the tasks of the International. Unanimously it proclaimed the necessity of an immediate reof the International which is possible today only on the basis of revolutionary socialist and proletarian internationalism. For this purpose the Conference expressed its great desire that the Social-democratic Parties of the belligerent countries might immediately break with the so-called civil peace3) and return again to implacable class struggle. In sending most cordial greetings to Rosa Luxemburg,4) Liebknecht5) and to all who remained loyal to the principles of international revolutionary socialism, the Conference pointed out that it was absolutely necessary to start a ruthstruggle against opportunism, social imperialism and trends of deviation within the International. The Bucharest Conference concluded its work by voting a resolution against military provocations in the Balkan states and for the preservation of peace and neutrality at any cost. (Here the speaker describes the impressive meeting which preceded the Bucharest Conference and the indignation of the Bucharest proletarians at the Government's decision preventing delegates from addressing the meeting). There is no need to point out in detail the tremendous historic, political and - as Comrade Sideris rightly put it - moral significance of the work which the Second Balkan Social-Democratic Conference did. It opens up a new and bright epoch for the Balkan proletariat and the peoples on the Balkan Peninsula. Our task today after this epoch-making conference will be to popularize the idea of a Balkan Federative Republic among the widest circles of the Bulgarian proletariat and working people and to rally the workers in the ranks and under the banner of the Balkan Social Democratic Federation!

It is only thus that we shall represent a worthy section of the Balkan International. Marching shoulder to shoulder with our brothers from Rumania, Serbia and Greece, we shall bring closer the day of triumph of the Balkan Federative Republic which will mark a sure stage towards the great proletarian social revolution!. NOTES 1) A Balkan Democratic Federation was raised as a slogan at the First Balkan Socialist Conference in Belgrade in 1910, in connexion with the growing threat of imperialist aggression on the Balkans. The Balkan socialist parties advocated fraternal understanding of the Balkan peoples, which would enable them to defend their freedom and national independence against the aggressive encroachments of the imperialists. The federation was 'to facilitate the settlement of all outstanding national issues in the Balkans, including the Macedonian question. Macedonia, which was split into three parts, was to be reunited into a single state enjoying equal rights within the framework of the Balkan Democratic Federation (Georgi Dimitrov). The Balkan Communist Federation (1919-1939) opposed the imperialist attempts to turn the Balkans into a bridgehead for an antiSoviet war and advocated friendship with the Soviet peoples. 2) The International Socialist Bureau is the executive organ of the 2nd International. Set up after the Paris Congress (1900) with headquarters in Brussels, it actually ceased to exist after Belgium's occupation by the Germans during the First World War. 3) 'Civil peace' or Burgfrieden in Germany, 'sacred unity' in France, 'industrial peace' in Great Britain, were the slogans put forward by the bourgeoisie during the First World War and taken up by the 2nd International. They aimed at putting an end to the class struggle during the war. The Left-Wing Socialists, unlike the Right-Wing Socialists, continue to fight against the bourgeoisie and the war, and in the Bulgarian National Assembly voted against the war credits. 4) Luxemburg, Rosa (1871-1919) - prominent revolutionary, one of the leaders of the Polish and German proletariat and organizer of the German Communist Party, representing like Lenin the leftwing in the 2nd International at the Congresses of Paris (1900) and Amsterdam (1903). At the Stuttgart Congress (1907) Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg introduced in the anti-war resolution the famous amendment on turning an imperialist war into a civil war. Rosa Luxemburg spent almost all the war years in prison and during the January 1919 rising she and Liebknecht were brutally murdered. 5) Liebknecht, Karl (1871-1919) - one of the leaders of the German proletariat, tribune of the German Revolution, took an active part in the youth conference in Stuttgart (1907), which laid the foundations of the political organization of Germany's working youth. After the first Russian Revolution, he advocated the Russian methods of struggle - a general political strike. On December 2, 1914, Liebknecht was the only Reighstag member to vote against the war credits after which he became the banner of internationalism and of the revolutionary anti-war struggle. In 1915 he wrote his famous leaflet The Main Enemy Is within Our Own Country, raising the slog, Not civil peace, but civil war! On May 1, 1916, he addressed a meeting in Berlin, spreading leaflets with the slogans 'Down with the War!', 'Down with the Government!' Arrested, he was sentenced to four years of forced labour. In 1917 and 1918, in letters sent from the prison, Liebknecht addressed ardent appeals to the German workers in defence of the Russian Revolution. On December 30, 1918, he co-chaired with Rosa Luxemburg a conference of the Spartacus Union, turning it into a constituent congress of the German Communist Party. As leader of the January Rising (1919) in Berlin, Liebknecht, together with Rosa Luxemburg, was brutally murdered on January 19, 1919 by the police gangs of the Social Democrats Eberts, Scheidemann, and Noske. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Concluding Speech before the 5th Congress of the BCP Delivered: December 25, 1948 after the Conclusion of the Discussions of the Report Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 3, 1972, pp. 348-353 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002 Comrades and Delegates, After all that has been said so far, I feel that I can confine myself to a short concluding speech. The discussions have shown the complete unanimity of the Congress with the Political Report of the Central Committee, as well as with the other reports on the agenda of the Congress, with the appraisals made and the inferences drawn, with the general Party line on the building of the economic and cultural foundations of socialism in Bulgaria, and with the concrete tasks mapped out in all spheres of our .social, economic, political, and cultural life. The Congress thus expressed complete unanimity on the basic problem., of Party policy. This is undoubtedly one of the moat important guarantees for our future success. The working out of a correct Party line and its unanimous approval by the Party members is the most important fact and factor. We should not forget, however, that good resolutions and declarations on the general line of the Party are merely a beginning, for they merely indicate a desire to win, but are not tantamount to victory. For the success of the general Party line adopted unanimously by our Fifth Congress it is necessary: a) to wage a systematic and steadfast fight against all difficulties, of which there are quite a few on our road, to surmount them by mobilizing the forces of the entire Party, of the working class, of all working people, of the Fatherland Front; b) to organize an ever more active participation of new forces in the socialist construction; c) to make a constant and strict selection of cadres, raising the capable ones to positions of leadership in the struggle against hardships, and removing the incompetent ones, those that do not wish to grow and develop or are incapable of doing so. Now that our Party stands at the helm of the state, its members occupying key positions in it and its authority having soared to unprecedented heights, now that our working people express their readiness to follow our Party and its general line - as was splendidly demonstrated in yesterday's manifestation of Sofia's working masses, the role of our organizations and their leaderships becomes crucial. Today our Party leaderships carry the main responsibility for all shortcomings, omissions and mistakes. On our Party and on the work of its cadres will hinge the successful execution of a task truly stupendous for our conditions, the fulfilment of the Five-Year Plan, as well as the other important decisions of the Congress. In my report I stressed what a mighty force our Party represented, how wide a support it enjoyed, how firm and close were its bonds with the existing mass organizations, how deep were the roots it had grown in the working class, in the toiling masses, in our people. And if in spite of the presence of these great possibilities which facilitate its successes, we still have many shortcomings, weaknesses and omissions, the fault for this lies within ourselves, especially in our insufficiently concrete practical leadership, in the serious flaws which creep into our organizational work. We must do away as soon as possible with the lag in our organizational work behind the requirements of the political line and the tasks of the party. We must raise the level of organizational leadership to that of the political leadership in all spheres of our activity, especially in our national economy, so that our organizational work may ensure the implementation of the political line and the decisions of the Party. In this respect, as was already stressed at the Congress, the selection of cadres, the check-up on the execution of decisions and the extensive use of criticism and self-criticism within the Party, of internal Party democracy, are of decisive importance. Our Congress shows the indeniable growth of our Party cadres, especially of our intermediary cadres which in the main decide on the success of Party policy in all spheres of our construction. We must promote with all forces the further growth of our Party cadres and unflinchingly remove incorrigible bureaucrats and office rate, well-headed little tyrants, windbags and all inefficient elements. We must boldly promote new cadres to positions of leadership those that have proven themselves capable organizers and efficient workers. It is highly important for the proper selection of cadres, for their growth and training, for the timely correction of mistakes and shortcomings in their work, to check up on the execution of the decisions taken and on the tasks entrusted to every single Party member. It is not exaggerated to say that most of the flaws and omissions in our work are due to the absence of a constant and correct check-up system. Only such a check-up can ensure successful struggle against bureaucracy, against those incapable of directing and organizing the implementation of the Party decisions, against all distortions of the Party line. This check-up, however, must be systematic and constant and be carried out by the very leaders of the organizations. As we noted at the Sixteenth Plenum of the Central Committee, criticism and self-criticism within our Party have not yet become a genuine motive force of its development. In this respect the Congress has undoubtedly made a big step forward, especially in the discussions of the Five-Year Plan and of organizational problems. I cannot bypass the fact, comrades, that here at the Congress as well, not enough courage was shown openly and justly to point out the errors and shortcomings allowed, concretely to name those responsible for them, to reveal the reasons for these errors and shortcomings and to suggest the ways and means of their prompt and effective elimination. The great stress on of constructive criticism and selfcriticism in our Party and the exposure of inadequacies in our work must be our constant and paramount task after the Congress as well in all sections of the Party from top to bottom. We must never forget that the acme of wisdom for a real Communist is to frankly admit his mistake, to boldly expose its causes and to be ready to promptly and radically correct it. In the Party and in all spheres of our life we must get rid of the harmful habit of not concretely pointing out mistakes lest we jeopardize friendships and kinships, hurt someone, or create personal troubles.

We must ruthlessly flay every nepotism when deciding on Party or state matters. The interests of the Party of the working class, of the people, must stand above all such petty bourgeois considerations and prejudices. Comrades, In connexion with the discussions and some questions addressed to me in writing, permit me to make two more remarks on matters of principle. 1) From what I have said in my report, to wit that under our present conditions, with the development of cooperative farms, we do not consider nationalization as an indispensable condition for the development of agriculture, it should by no means be deduced that the construction of socialism in the countryside is, in general, possible without the nationalization of land. We consider, however, that by gradually winning over the poor and middling peasants into the co-operative farms by developing the machine-tractor stations, by prohibiting the renting out of farms, by restricting and subsequently prohibiting the purchase and sale of land, by reducing and subsequently abolishing rent through decision of the co-operative farmers themselves when conditions permit, the practical problem of land nationalization will be solved by leaving all land for the perpetual use of the toiling peasants. Thus the toiling peasant who is today a slave of his small plot will be enabled to make the widest use of the fruits of the land which will be considerably increased through modernized and mechanized cultivation in the large co-operative farms. 2) The second remark refers to the definition of popular democracy given in my report. Some comrades who in their discussions touched on this problem were inclined to put the main emphasis on what distinguishes popular democracy from the Soviet regime, something which may lead to incorrect and harmful deductions. According to Marxist-Leninist principles, the Soviet regime and popular democracy are two forms of one and the same rule - the rule of the working class in alliance with and at the head of the working people from town and countryside. They are two forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The particular form of transition from capitalism to socialism in Bulgaria does not and cannot alter the basic laws on the transition period from capitalism to socialism which are valid for all countries.The transition to socialism cannot be carried out without dictatorship of the proletariat against the capitalist elements andfor the organization of the socialist economy. But whereas bourgeois democracy is the dictatorship of capital, of an exploiting big business minority over the great majority of working people, popular democracy fulfils the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the interest of the overwhelming majority of working people and realizes the widest and most complete democracy - socialist democracy. From the fact that popular democracy and the Soviet regime coincide in the most important and decisive respect, i. e. that they both represent the rule of the working class in alliance and at the head of the working people, there follow some highly essential deductions on the necessity of making the most thorough study and widest application of the great experiment of socialist construction in the USSR. And this experiment, comrades, adapted to our conditions, is the only and best model for the construction of socialism in Bulgaria, as well as in the other People's Democracies. The apprehension expressed by our comrade Todor Pavlov before this Congress that the definition of our popular democracy as a form of proletarian dictatorship might encourage attempts to violate law and order, caused considerable consternation. Such apprehension is completely unwarranted. Popular democracy, fulfilling the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, by its very essence and character cannot tolerate any arbitrariness and lawlessness. This rule is strong enough to be respected by everyone, irrespective of his position. We harbour no illusion - and in our Party there are no serious Party members who can have such an illusion that the road along which our Party is travelling will be smooth. We know that this road is hard and thorny, but it is the only salutary road for the working class, the people and our country. We realize that we still have many difficulties to overcome. But we also know and our people know it well - that our Party has proven that it is not afraid of difficulties in fulfilling its historic mission. Our Party has also proved that it knows how to overcome all difficulties, no matter how great they be and from what quarters they may stem, from our internal or external enemies. Now, armed with the historic decisions of our Fifth Congress, learning constantly and tirelessly from the great Bolshevik Party, there can be no doubt that our Party - headed by a Central Committee to be elected by the Congress and which will be Leninist in spirit, firmness, iron discipline, diligence, fearlessness in face of hardships and dangers - will, in spite of everything, bring the already begun task of building a socialist society in our country to a victorious consummation. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Lenin to the Workers in Europe and America First Published: Sofia, May 1919. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 59-62. Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 Preface to the Pamphlet "Two open letters by Lenin to the American and European workers" The name of the most authoritative leader of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lenin, has become world famous. Today it is pronounced with fear and trepidation by the supporters of the old and shaken bourgeois system in all countries, and with admiration and even religious awe by the proletariat and all enslaved mankind. Side by side with Marx and Engels, the great founders of scientific soand authors of the Communist Manifesto, Lenin imhimself in the history of the workers' emancimovement by the titanic accomplishments of the Russian Socialist Revolution, the practical application of the principles of the Communist Manifesto and the estabof the proletarian Soviet State. His name has become the symbol of the international workers' revolution which, after having triumphed in Russia, swept over Hun shook Germany and is steadily spreading in order to engulf the whole capitalist world. It is for this very reason that everything written and said by Lenin today assumes tremendous significance for the fighting proletariat in all countries. Engrossed day and night in the task of building up the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, of crushing the counterfrom within and without, and clearing the road of the workers' revolution in other countries, Lenin has still found time to address two letters - one to the American workers, of August 20, 1918, and the other to the Euroand American workers, of January 21, 1919. We borrow Lenin's first letter from the Social Demopaper Workers' Education in America, where it was printed after undergoing certain excisions by the American censorship. As can be seen, the deleted passages deal with the situation in America and the present-day revolutionary tasks of the American proletariat. The second letter is a verbatim translation from the Rusoriginal. In his first letter, Lenin brilliantly champions the cause of the Russian Socialist Revolution, of the Soviet Republic and its peaceful policy, as well as of the dictatorof the proletariat. In his second letter, noting the substantial successes of the revolutionary proletariat in various countries in its struggle for political power, he proclaims the actual founof the Communist International, outlining with his customary clarity and sharpness the ways and means of the universal workers' revolution. We Bulgarian Communists (Left-wing Socialists) are gratified to note that we are in complete agreement with Lenin, that the principles and tactics of the Communist Inare also our principles and tactics. Lenin's views on bourgeois democracy and parliamenare those most firmly upheld by our Party, which has never been the victim of any parliamentary illusions and has always kept aloof from the fallacies and prejudices of bourgeois democracy. Rejecting bourgeois democracy and parliamentarism, the Bulgarian Communist Party is preparing the proletariat and the working people's masses for a revolution aimed at the conquest of political power. It makes use of electoral campaigns and the parliamentary tribune along with its other means solely for this prepara until the moment about which Lenin is speaking in his second letter sets in in our country, when it will forsake its parliamentary position and go over to an all-round offenin order to overthrow the capitalist state and to replace it by a Soviet proletarian state, by the workers' dicta The three main trends among the proletariat in all countries, which Lenin has so well described in his second let exist also in Bulgaria. The two trends, the social-patriand the moderate one ('Kautsky's followers') are repby the Right-wing Socialists' party, which with its extreme social-patriots (Sakuzov, Djidrov, Pastouhov, Sakarov, Assen Tsankov, etc.) and its moderates, the Ilautskians (Romanov, Rashenov, etc.), is entirely in the camp of the bourgeois counter-revolution. The representative of the revolutionary trend is the Bulgarian Communist Party (Left-wing Socialists), which by its nature, its programme and communist slogans, its activity and mass revolutionary struggle is the only ComParty in our country and rightly represents the Bulgarian section of the Communist International. This being the actual situation, everyone realizes not only how senseless, but also how harmful and treacherous it is to set up various 'communist groups', 'organizations' and 'small parties' outside the Bulgarian Communist Party. These are today ardently desired by some men of unbridled ambition, various supermen, incorrigible individualists, and even parasites of the workers' revolution. All workers, all working people, all militant and revoelements in our country, who actually adhere to the principles and tactics of the Communist International, and who are - for one reason or another - still outside the Bulgarian Communist Party and its workers' trade unions, outside the workers' revolutionary movement, are today bound to heed Lenin's powerful call, to become deeply imwith his ideas as expounded in these two letters, and to rally without hesitation to the ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party and its workers' trade unions under the banner of communism. The 'right' and 'left' counter-revolutionaries are today rapidly organizing and mustering their forces - the latter rallied around the 'leftist' Government of Teodorov-Pas and the former around the Democratand Liberal bourgeois Parties with their military lead pseudo-Macedonian and jingoist gangs. Against the counter-revolutionists who are thus getting organized, we must set up the mighty revolutionary bloc of the Bulgarian proletariat and the remaining working masses, through the Bulgarian Communist Party and its workers' trade union organizations. History is posing point-blank the question: either with the counter-revolution - for the preservation of capitalism, or with the workers' revolution - for the abolition of capand through a workers' dictatorship, for the estabof socialism and the complete triumph of communism. There is no middle road! Everyone ought to find his proper place! Everyone must do his duty! No splitting of the revolutionary forces of the proletariat! No setting up of separatist groups and organizations! No banking on communism and the communist revolution. All workers and working people who are ready for a destruggle must be in full revolutionary unity through their Communist Party and their trade unions! This is the supreme demand of the present historic moment! This is actually the great practical meaning of the two open letters of the great leader of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and the world workers' revolution, which we most ardently recommend to the Bulgarian workers and all working people in town and countryside. Dimitrov Works Archive

Georgi Dimitrov Towards Unity! First Published: 1914 in Rabotnicheski Vestnik No. 279, April 9. Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 36-39 Transcription/HTML Markup: Mathias Bismo Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2003 The visit to Sofia during the Easter holidays of Comrade K. Legien,1) President of the International Trade Union, was for the Sofia workers and for the whole Bulgarian prolefighting against capitalist exploitation a rare proletarian festival which left behind profound and indelible memories. No one else has yet been given such a grand and cordial welcome in Bulgaria's capital as the president of the Trade Unions International. The organized workers of Sofia and the entire class-conscious Bulgarian proletariat gave a vivid expression of their boundless sympathies for the organized international proletariat when welcoming Comrade K. Leand at the impressive workers' meeting in New Ameri, as well as through hundreds of messages of greetings sent from the provinces; they manifested their sentiments of international proletarian solidarity in a most eloquent manner and showed that in spirit and struggle they were part and parcel of the eight-million strong workers' army, rallied under the banner of the International. This was also a brilliant manifestation of the idea of proletarian unity, of the complete unity of its organization and struggle, as well as a condemnation of the attempts made so far by the corrupt mock-socialist intelligentsia to split the workers' forces. We value this manifestation all the more, because a proletariat devoid of class-consciousness and a feeling of cohesion and unity in its organization and struggle against capitalism is doomed. K. Legien's visit to our country is of great importance for the unity and further development of the Bulgarian trade union movement. True, as we are bidding farewell today to our dear guest and his most congenial companion Comrade Bukscheck, we cannot yet say unfortunately that the trade union split in a number of trades has been completely overcome. It should be stressed, however, that his mission in this respect was not in vain. What has been done at the recent conferences of trade union representatives is a decisive step towards doing away with the existing split in trade unions, something which may be considered as impending. First of all, at the conferences presided over by Comrade K. Legien, a survey was made of the state of the trade union movement in our country and, in particular, of the trade unions affiliated to the two trade union centres. What became strikingly clear here was the vast numerical, financial and all-round superiority of the Social-democratic trade unions over the rival trade unions affiliated to the centre of Rightwing Socialists. Before a representative of the International it was positively ascertained, with all the necessary factual data, that our General Workers' Trade Union, comprising 13 central trade unions, numbered 6,563 regular members on March 20, 1914, that from January 1 to March 20 of the same year 47,200 weekly membership dues totalling 15,534.45 leva were received in the central treasury of these unions, and that the total revenue for the same period was 20,283.45 leva, with ready cash on March 20 reaching 40,410.79 leva. Whereas the rival 'right-wing' unions, according to the two sole tables submitted by their centre containing uncerdata, and with unconfirmed resources, have 3,163 members, with a revenue from membership dues 3,920.80 leva, a total revenue of 7,153.41 leva and ready cash 4,678.99 leva in March! It was also ascertained that the Right-wing Socialist centre has a few organizations only in the trades of print tailors, shoemakers, sales clerks and carpenters, and that mainly in Sofia, as the listed handful of members from the other trades cannot be considered as forming organizations. Moreover, it became abundantly clear that while in the Social-democratic trade unions there is complete cohesion and centralization, as is the case in all modern trade unions, the rival unions continue to be completely decentralized and disorganized. All these important findings, ascertained officially by the President of the International Trade Union in person, go to show once again that the de facto representative and leader of the trade union movement in Bulgaria is our trade union centre, the only one that deserves serious attention on the part of the International. Nevertheless, Comrade Karl Legien was fully aware of the necessity of creating a single unified trade union centre, so as to secure the regular development of the trade union movement and to guarantee the success of the workers' future struggles. Proceeding from the assumption that there are two Social-democratic parties in Bulgaria, with which the two trade union centres are connected, and that the Tatexistence apart from one another is determined by the existing Party split, considering the Right-wing Party a Social-democratic one, insofar as it is affiliated to the InSocialist Bureau, without considering its true character, Comrade Legien found that the best way out of the present situation would be for the two centres to merge on the basis of neutrality, naturally not neutrality with regard to socialism, but to the existing two socialist parties. Formally, he was quite right. The trouble is that the RightSocialist Party is not in any sense of the word a SoParty, that a wide and unbridgeable gap separates it from the Workers' Social-democratic Party and that, this being so, if a trade union merger were to be effected on a basis of neutrality, the thus unified trade union movement would become the arena of Party struggles and be exposed to the demoralization which is now underthe ranks of Right-wing Socialists.

The trouble is that the RightSocialist Party is not in any sense of the word a SoParty, that a wide and unbridgeable gap separates it from the Workers' Social-democratic Party and that, this being so, if a trade union merger were to be effected on a basis of neutrality, the thus unified trade union movement would become the arena of Party struggles and be exposed to the demoralization which is now underthe ranks of Right-wing Socialists. This is a terrific risk which our trade union centre and the Social-demotrade unions, conscious of their responsibility for the present and future of the Bulgarian workers' movement, could not take at the moment. We therefore proposed at the conference that the settlement of all the problems concerning the character, tactics, etc., of the trade union movement be left to the workers themselves, who form part of the organizations attached to the two trade union centres and have a direct stake in the attainment of trade union unity. We submitted to the conthe following declaration: We agree that it be decided now, in the preservation of Comrade Karl Legien, that the two trade union centres should convene a general congress, at which the representationshould be determined on the basis of the data, ascertained by this conference, on the numerical strength of trade unions belonging to the two centres, with one delegate from the midst of the trade unions themselves per 100 members. This congress should decide sovereignly, on the basis of an ordinary majority, all questions concern the character, tactics form of organization and relationship to political parties of the future General Trade Union, its decisions being compulsory for the member unions. The congress should be convened at the end of April at the latest.' This proposal, which leaves to the workers themselves from the two parties concerned to decide upon the outstandissues and to achieve the complete unity of their organi was flatly rejected by the right-wing leaders. Those who loudly proclaimed at every street corner their readito achieve trade union unity at all cost, now that an acceptable practical basis leading to real trade union unity was proposed, considered it advisable to back out. We remain convinced, however, that all the workers who hold dear the unity of the trade union movement will accept this modus and will help to overcome the now existsplit in the trade unions. All the more so, as it is now no longer possible to keep up the myth, which the rival organihave been spreading for years among the workers, that the International will impose unity on the basis of neutrality. The demagogical flirting with the idea of unification has now come to an end. The complete unity of the trade union movement in Bulgaria is about to be re-established. NOTES 1) Legien, Karl (1861-1920), German trade union leader, right-wing Social Democrat, member of the Reichstag from 1893, President of the German General Trade Unions and Secretary of the International Trade Union Secretariat from 1890, and after 1913 its President, during World War I an outspoken chauvinist sacrificing the trade unions to the interests of the military, and after the German revolutionj in 1918 promoter of co-operation between businessmen and trade unions. Dimitrov Works Archive

General Boulanger 1891 Suicide of General Boulanger Source: Le Petit Journal, October 1, 1891; Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor. Ixelles, September 30, 1:15 pm General Boulanger has just killed himself at the cemetery of Ixelles, near the grave of Mme de Bonnemain, who was his companion in exile and whose recent death we have doubtless not forgotten. This morning the general went out in his carriage, had his coachman leave and remained standing for quite some time before the grave. And then suddenly – it was about 11:30 – he took revolver from his pocket and shot a bullet into his right temple. The bullet came out the other side, through the left temple. The guards and several people attracted by the sound of the detonation saw the general spin and then fall to the ground. They immediately ran over, but the general had already breathed his last breath. M. Marchal, the director of the cemetery, took the weapon from the suicide’s hand, and at 1:00 the corpse was transported to the general’s domicile. The suicide Brussels, 3:00 pm The general lived on rue Montoyer in Ixelles, a suburb of Brussels, in a house with his mother and his nieces, Mlles Griffith. A few days ago one of his friends, M. Alfred Dutens, had come to join him in Ixelles. Since Mme de Bonnemain’s death, the general went every day at 4:00 to the cemetery where she rests and remained there for a long time in meditation before her grave. This grave is quite simple, and is only distinguishable from the monuments that surround it by the pile of wreaths of all sizes and kinds that cover it. On the tombstone, this epitaph: MARGUERITE December 19, 1855 July 15, 1891 See you soon Since losing his companion, the general appeared to be in a state of total despair, completely annihilated. He showed no concern for anything at all. This morning at 10:00, contrary to his habit, he left for the cemetery in his coup�. A short while later, M. Dutens, surprised by the abnormal departure of his friend, left in a carriage to join him at the spot he was almost certain to find him. It was 11:10. “Oh, it’s you,” cried General Boulanger upon seeing M. Dutens. “What have you come here for?” “General, your absence surprised me, and I wanted to join you and tear you from your sad thoughts. I was afraid you had some fatal project.” “But if I wanted to kill myself would I come here, to a public place, and make a spectacle of myself? I would do it at home. But by the way, how did you get here?” “In a fiacre.” “Send it away, I’ll join you. We’ll leave together.” M. Dutens moved away. The general walked around the grave and a few seconds later, a fatal shot resounded. The rest is known. When they ran to his aid the general couldn’t say a single word, and when doctors arrived they had nothing left to do but pronounce him dead. Cemetery guards and policemen transported the corpse in the general’s coup�. General Boulanger killed himself with his service revolver. The grooming of the body At the house on rue Montoyer the domestics brought the corpse upstairs to the bedroom, laid it out on the bed, and dressed it in evening clothes, decorated with the plaque of a high officer of the Legion of Honor. Upon undressing the general, it was noted that he wore on his breast, stuck to a shirt onto which blood had flowed, a large photograph of Mme de Bonnemain. The blood soaked portrait was stuck to the undergarment, and when taking it off a few small pieces were torn. Mme Bonnemain is pictured there standing, in an evening dress with a deep d�colletage. The portrait dates from 1888. The general is now resting in his bedroom on the third floor of the building, in a bed whose canopy and curtains are garnished with blue silk. In the room can be seen a portrait of the former Minister of War in street clothes, tracing out plans; to the side are a portrait of Mme de Bonnemain and a photograph of Mme Driant. The face of the deceased is calm. On each of his temples, to hide the holes made by the bullet, a black plaster with cotton balls has been placed. The general’s testament Four days ago the general deposited a will relating to his private affairs with M. Lecocq, notary on rue d’Arlon. He also deposited a political testament by which, we have been told, he designated a leader for his former party. This leader is M. Paul D�roul�de. In addition, General Boulanger before dying left different telegrams destined for family members, friends, and several people involved in his political affairs. These dispatches had been placed in a package that M. Mouton, the general’s secretary, found this afternoon in a cardboard box. On this package was written these words: ‘Telegrams to be sent immediately after my death.” One of these telegrams was for Mme Boulanger, and was addressed as follows: Mme Widow Boulanger. Before leaving for the cemetery where he put an end to his days, the general had written to his mother and said he intended to go away for a few days. In writing this letter his aim was to allow his friends to hide the fatal news for a while from the poor woman, who is more than 80 years old, and to inform her of it with much delicacy. The seals Brussels, 9:00 pm It was thought that the French legation, immediately after the death of General Boulanger, would call for the sealing of the papers of the former Minister of War, but this formality wasn’t carried out until quite late in the afternoon. The French minister is on leave, and in his absence the secretary of the legation sent a telegram to Paris for orders. By 4:00 in the afternoon he had still received no instructions, but the justice of the peace having proceeded to the placing of seals it is presumed it was done at the request of the French legation. At the general’s home It was only at 4:00 that visitors and dispatches started to arrive at the house on rue Montoyer. The first person to arrive was Prince Victor Napoleon. The first telegram to arrive was from M. Paul D�roul�de, the second was signed M. Millevoye. Expected tonight at midnight on the Paris train are several members of the former National Party. A large crowd is stationed in front of the building, commenting on the general’s tragic end. The shutters on the ground floor are shut; the blinds on the upper floors are down. The funeral The funeral service, according to what we’ve been told, will be celebrated Sunday at 3:00. However, nothing has been decided in this regard, the family not having had time to make a decision. This is the response that is invariably given to all the coffin salesmen, hearse renters, and funeral directors who are virtually assaulting the building. It appears that the Archbishop of Malines has refused the authorization needed for a religious ceremony. In principle the Catholic Church refuses entry to its temples of the mortal remains of suicides, and the Belgian clergy is particularly strict on this point. In France one can quite easily get around this difficulty if the family can have it admitted that the suicide killed himself in an access of insanity. Georges Boulanger Archive

Boulangisme 1889 Profession of Faith of General Boulanger Source: Alexandre Z�va�s, Histoire de la III�me R�publique. �ditions Georges Anquetil Paris, 1926; Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor; CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2009. Voters of the Seine: The parliamentarians who did all they could to make me unelectable are today frightened at the idea of seeing me elected. My sword worried them. They took it from me. And now here they are more worried than during the period when I still wore it! In reality, it’s not me they’re afraid of, it’s universal suffrage, whose repeated judgments testify to the disgust inspired in the country by the state of degradation their incapacity, their base intrigues, and their pointless discussions have reduced the republic. In fact, it is more convenient for them to hold me responsible for the discredit they’ve fallen into than to attribute it to their indifference to the interests and sufferings of the people. So as not to be forced to accuse themselves, they accuse me by attributing to me the most unbelievable dictatorial plans. For I was overthrown as minister on the pretext that I meant war, and they fight me as a candidate on the pretext that I mean dictatorship. Dictatorship! Is it not we who suffered it in all its forms? Don’t they propose every day laws of exception for our voters and myself? If the thought of playing dictator had come to me it would seem to me that it would have been when as Minister of War I had the whole army in hand. Was there anything at that time in my attitude that could have justified this insulting suspicion? No! I accepted the sympathy of all without thinking of stealing anyone’s popularity. What of dictatorial is there in a program that calls for a constitutional revision by the most democratic of systems, that is, by means of a constituent assembly, where every deputy would be able to defend and make his opinions prevail? The leaders of the republican party had based themselves on my republicanism in order to open the doors to the ministry for me. What have I done since then to no longer be worthy of the republic? Let them tell me of one sole act, one sole profession of faith where I didn’t clearly affirm this! But along with all of France, I want a republic composed of something other than an assembly of ambitions and greed. What can we hope for from people who, after having been fooled for 15 years as they themselves admit, dare to present themselves again, asking for your trust? Voters of the Seine, France today is thirsty for justice, uprightness and selflessness. To try along with you to wrest it from the waste that exhausts it and competitions that lower it, for me means still serving it. The fatherland is our common patrimony. You will prevent it from becoming the prey of some. Vive la France! Vice la R�publique! Boulangisme Archive

General Boulanger 1888 The Program of General Boulanger First published: as broadsheet, April 1888; Translated: from the original broadsheet by Mitchell Abidor. The hypocritical tremblers who have oppressed us for too long try their best to claim that General Boulanger has no program, that they don’t know what he wants, what he thinks, what he can do. We will answer these people; You want to know what Boulanger is? Boulanger is WORK! Boulanger is FREEDOM! Boulanger is HONESTY! Boulanger is the RIGHT! Boulanger is the PEOPLE! Boulanger is PEACE! BOULANGER IS WORK What do you workers want? To work. What do you lack? Work and bread! To whom do you owe unemployment, ruin, and poverty? To those who pass their needs, their appetites, and their unhealthy ambition before your need, which they should be defending, and who see dry-eyed and with a light heart the worker suffer and die of hunger. For them positions, honors, luxury, power. For you poverty! It is time that this end! Make way for the Avenger! Make way for he who will rid you of this herd of parasites, living off your sufferings, betraying your trust, and who have done nothing for you, except for sending your children to die far away without any profit for France, which they left disarmed! Make Way for He Who Will Rebuild National Labor! Make way for the general who, in giving us strength will give us security, without which there is no possible enterprise! Make way for the Reformer who, protecting industry, commerce and agriculture will give you the possibility to feed your children, to raise them, and to make of them good and solid workers.! Boulanger will defend you against foreign competition. Boulanger, whose hands are clean of any shameful traffic, will be inspired only by your interests. It is because he is above all honest that those who have sold you out for so long tried to kill him and continue to rabidly fight him. But you will support him, all of you who know nothing but bread honestly earned! You will defend him, workers scorned by those who exploit you. You will fight for him with your votes, workers in all crafts who want to live from your labor and who are tired of languishing unoccupied! Close your ranks en masse around Boulanger! Supported by you he will drive the merchants from the temple and henceforth, having a man at your head who will defend your legitimate demands you will be able – protected from internal and external enemies – to put in practice the motto dear to all honest workers, the one for which your fathers fought: Live while working! BOULANGER IS FREEDOM! Along with work, what do you want? To be free! Are you now? No! Bound by laws made against you by leaders who are afraid of you, you are held on a leash, and you are barely allowed to breathe your complaints. You are no more free individually than collectively. Everywhere the barriers are raised up anew that you once reversed at the price of your blood! Everywhere you meet laws restrictive of any initiative. Why these barriers? Why these laws? Because they are afraid of you! Why are afraid? Because those who oppress you, those who maintain you in a yoke, know full well that the day you’ll be free, truly free, they will be lost. Boulanger for his part is not afraid of you! We fear nothing when, like him, we are frank, honest, and loyal; when we want the good of all without concern for ourselves. He doesn’t fear your being free because he has nothing to hide, nothing else to defend than you, your rights, your interests, and you goods. Thus: Boulanger is freedom! BOULANGER IS HONESTY! Honesty! This is what is lacking in those who have misled you up till now. Recently you saw if it was with the red of shame in their faces that you witnessed the collapse of those who your trust had placed so highly. Probity! Honesty! You saw these two so French virtues for an instant descending into the mire into which they were plunged by shameless men who tried in vain to save from your contempt those who should be the strict guardians of this national good. Frenchmen! Will you allow corruption to cynically and insolently spread? No! You have already said so by voting in five departments for General Boulanger. You are attacked for wanting a master. But the rule you want, which you call for with all your heart, is the rule of honesty. And who more than Boulanger possesses this proud virtue? Who more than this honest soldier, belonging to our army, so pure, so worthy in his poverty, can finally bring about an era of probity? Who better than he rewarded true merit without allowing himself to be taken in by interested recommendations? Honesty: this is the motto that is dear to him. Those of you who are honest! Those of you who blushed at the shameful traffics recently revealed; Those o f you who want favor to give way to merit, support Boulanger, for Boulanger is honesty. BOULANGER IS THE RIGHT! Yes he is the right, for he respects all that you want, all you need. Standard bearer of your just demands he represents the inalienable right that resides in you, the right to be governed as you should be, the right to replace those who lost your trust, the inalienable right to impose your will. Thus, Boulanger is the right. BOULANGER IS THE PEOPLE!

BOULANGER IS THE PEOPLE! The people, that is, the French! The people who suffer! The people who are hungry! He suffers to see the fatherland ceaselessly debased and humiliated; he suffers to see our beautiful country hindered in its march towards progress! He is hungry for justice, hungry for work, hungry for honor and consideration! The people want everyone to again be able to say with pride: I am French! It no longer wants to bow its head! And Boulanger had the great honor of being the first one to proudly raise up his head. Summing up all the angers of the past few years he didn’t want to forever and ceaselessly bow. If he wants to live while working, Frenchmen, he prefers to die alongside you as you fight to the shame of a cowardly submission. For living without honor can no longer suit the people! It lived virtually without bread. It doesn’t want to live without dignity. It is Boulanger who was the first want to be able to make the voice of France heard in foreign lands. It was he who as the representative of the people protested against the policy of degradation. Frenchmen of all parties, it was he who valiantly expressed the opinion that unites you all in a common idea, the same devotion, in the same aspiration. He identified himself with you, and that’s why Boulanger is the People! BOULANGER IS PEACE! Yes peace, but an honorable peace! This is the one we want! This is the one he will give us! It is in vain that his disloyal adversaries don’t hesitate about writing that his name is synonymous with imminent war. It is in vain that pushing imprudence to its limits these German of the interior affirm that in order to sustain himself the general will be carried away towards combat by an irresistible current. They lie Patriotic Frenchmen, tired of bowing your heads, If you want to maintain the peace, Support General Boulanger! He alone will allow you to no longer submit to the insolent injunctions from without for, as insolent as they are with the weak, with the timid, with the humble, that is how respectful they are towards the strong; towards those who., without any arrogance, are conscious of being in the right. And the right is on our side! All of you, workers crushed by the disastrous consequences of an evil policy that reduces national labor! All of you peasants, who want to keep your fathers’ fields and don’t want to eat a bread shamefully preserved! You, bourgeois and bosses, touched in your interests by the chaos in whose bowels swarms discredited parliamentarianism! You too, intellectual elite of the nation, humiliated by the insolent fortune of shameless mediocrities! Support General Boulanger! His hand on the guard of France’s sword, the general will know how to make those who threaten us understand that the time of fearful submission has passed, and that in the balance of Europe’s destiny that sword, reforged by him, bears great weight. And then confident in its mission of progress and civilization, seeing open before it an era of justice, of calm, of order and liberty, France, rid of those who enslave it will, impassive and serene, expect that the Law, once unknown and violated, take a shining revenge on France! This is the program of General Boulanger. Frenchmen, it is up to you to allow him to accomplish it! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA R�PUBLIQUE! April 1888 Georges Boulanger Archive

The Boulangist Movement 1888 General Boulanger, Deputy of the Nord, Leader of the National party By Louis de Jonqui�res Source: Le General Boulanger, depute du Nord Chef du Parti National. Paris, [n.d. 1888] [n.p.]; Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor; CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2009. As for me, more a patriot than a soldier, I ardently wish for the maintenance of the peace, so necessary for the march of progress and the happiness of my country. It is for this that, disdaining certain attacks and strong in my feeling of duty, I tirelessly pursue the preparation for war, the sole guarantee of lasting peace. I summarize, messieurs: for a nation there are two kinds of peace: The peace we ask for and the peace we impose through a firm and dignified attitude. The latter is the only that suits you and I thank you, educators of this proud youth, I thank you, valiant young men for assisting the government in assuring for France its benefits. (Speech by General Boulanger at the Gymnastic societies of France, October 1886.) Universal suffrage has just responded with a grandiose acclamation to the appeal of an odiously persecuted, cowardly slandered honest man. His sovereign voice has just paid off the long delayed debt of reprisals that he owed the politicians who were stirred up against one of the must illustrious figures of our army. The general, deputy from the Nord, made his triumphal, entry into the Palais Bourbon escorted not only by the 400,000 votes he obtained in various elections, but the good wishes of all patriots. The latter bravely supported him without allowing themselves to be intimidated by the oligarchy that governs us. But let us not be ungrateful, and let us recognize that his enemies did what needed to be done to ensure his success. It is now necessary that the example given by the voters of the Aisne, the Dordogne, and the Nord be faithfully followed from one end of the territory to the other. It is necessary that this patriotic agitation grow without let up until the country has once again taken ownership of itself. This moment is near. Significant symptoms announce virile resolutions in the heart of the nation. Will the unrepresentative parliament finally understand that all that is left to it is to retire from the stage? The noble and sympathetic face of General Boulanger is one of those we don’t forget after having seen it. The portrait published in this biography faithfully traces its delicate and expressive lines. Many today know this energetic and distinguished physiognomy, with its ever mobile gaze, the overall effect of which so easily seduces. His size is a bit over the average, and this robust Breton body is full of vigor and activity. His lively intelligence and great capacity for work early on rendered him precious to his hierarchical chiefs. To his brilliant qualities, his intelligence joins marvelous faculties for organization and administration, which we were convinced of during his too brief passage at the ministry of War. The taste for serious studies united with the most amiable gifts is the privilege of elite natures. General Boulanger’s comrades have always found in the hardworking officer the wide awake spirit, full of enthusiasm and good humor that neither the harsh tests of war nor the foolish vexations of this last period have altered. He who the masses love to call “the brave general,” two words naively joined which mean affability, bravery, and honesty, is also an accomplished gentleman [in English in the original] of great distinction and an irreproachable correctness. We should add that this infantry general is a brilliant horseman, always ready to charge the enemy, both at the head of a squadron and at the head of a battalion of soldiers of the line. What distinguishes him from many others is that in order to stop him in his tracks it would suffice to place before him a group of disarmed men, of women and children. He is not a member of the school of those who massacre. It is for this that we love him deeply and bow down low before him. At the moment when a brutal decree has just retired the young division leader who, despite it all, remains the dearest hope of the fatherland, an immense protest is rising from the entire country, foiling the perfidious calculations of his persecutors and uniting all French hearts around the patriotic general. * Georges-Ernest-Jean-Marie Boulanger, born in Rennes April 29, 1837 entered [the military academy at] St Cyr January 15, 1855. Among his classmates were Generals Begin, Bichot, Rozier du Linage, Caillard and Faverot. Upon leaving the school he was named Sub-Lieutenant of the First Regiment of Algerian Tirailleurs in Blidah (October 1, 1856). This was a good setting for a beginner. This regiment had been gloriously decimated the previous year in Crimea on the battlefields of Alma, Inkerman, Chernaia, and Balaclava. The young sub-lieutenant arrived in Blidah at the right moment to receive his baptism of fire. At the time Marshal Randon was in command of the expedition to greater Kabylia. He sent the First Regiment of Tirailleurs to attack the almost inaccessible crests of Djurjura, which lasted from July 10-15, 1857. Sub-Lieutenant Boulanger comported himself bravely, and he has never since forgotten those horrible nocturnal climbs that the vigilance of the kabyles made so fearsome for our soldiers.

Sub-Lieutenant Boulanger comported himself bravely, and he has never since forgotten those horrible nocturnal climbs that the vigilance of the kabyles made so fearsome for our soldiers. When Marshal Randon left his command he addressed warm congratulations in his order of the day to the First Regiment of Algerian Tirailleurs. In 1859 Sub-Lieutenant Boulanger took part in the Italian Campaign. His regiment participated in the fierce combat that took place June 3 of that year between Robeccheto and Turbigo. The young officer had his breast pierced by a ball. He was thought to be doomed. His lungs had been lightly wounded. He only survived by a miracle. His mother, who had rushed to his bedside, felt two joys: that of seeing her son saved and that of seeing the Croix d’Honneur shine on his chest. Returned to Africa in 1860, he was named Lieutenant in the selection of October 28 of that year. The First Regiment of Algerian Tirailleurs took part in all events. A detachment that Lieutenant Boulanger was part of embarked for Cochin China at the beginning of the following year. It was composed of 300 men, two thirds of whom were never to see the homeland again. Barely arrived, our lieutenant received another wound at the battle of Tray-Dan (a lance blow to the left thigh). He was promoted to captain July 21, 1862 and after distinguishing himself in several affairs he brilliantly terminated that campaign February 15, 1863 by taking, at the head of his company, the fortress of Winh-Toi. On his return he had to cross the pestilential swamps near Binh-Long. Captain Boulanger was touched, like most of his soldiers, by the horrible fever, but he triumphed over the illness thanks to his robust constitution. In 1866 he was detached to the school at St Cyr as captain-instructor. His severity became proverbial there, but his well-known spirit of impartiality made him loved by all the students. When he left St Cyr in 1870 he took with him the reputation of an outstanding instructor and the unanimous regrets of the school. Named Battalion Chief July 17, 1870 he fought in the Paris campaign. Wounded for the third time, and seriously, at the battle of Champigny (November 30) twenty days after his promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel of the 114th of the line, he was carried in his men’s arms to the thickest of the fight, wanting, as he said, to see the end of so glorious a day. Barely recovered from his wound, he returned to the fire January 27, 1871 to wear for the first time his epaulettes as colonel of the same regiment, and was wounded a fourth time. He was mentioned in the order of the day of the army, and named commander of the Legion of Honor. The brave officer was 34. After the conclusion of the peace, the commission for the revision of ranks, which believed it its duty to take at least one stripe from those who had earned four, believed that the 34 year old colonel could not be up to the level of his task. If Hoche and Marceau had appeared before these revisionists they would have been demoted to simple sergeants because of their youth. Colonel Boulanger had watered with his blood each of his rapid promotions, as well as the events to which he owed them. They doubtless invoked some old regulation, and the commission stuck in its routine rut re-assigned him as lieutenant colonel to the 109th regiment of the line. His rank was only returned to him November 15, 1874. He was placed at the head of the 70th infantry regiment first, then the 133rd on garrison duty in Belley (Ain). It was there that his nomination to the rank of brigadier general found him (May 4, 1880). At his request, he obtained the command of a cavalry brigade in Valence (July 21, 1880) and peremptorily proved that the excellent infantry instructor was also a brilliant cavalryman. August 13, 1882 General Boulanger was sent by France on a mission to the United States to represent the country at the festivities celebrating the centenary of American independence. We recall the warm reception given the head of the French mission upon his arrival in New York. M. Barbou the author of an excellent military biography of General Boulanger cites in this regard the following lines excerpted from the Yorktown brochure, written by the Marquis de Rochambeau: “In the United States the general personified the French army in the happiest of fashions. Men admired the subtlety of his appreciations and the breadth of his knowledge; women his elegant and martial appearance, the grace of his manners. It is certain that France could not have had a better representative on the other side of the ocean.” We have not forgotten that a painful incident occurred on the occasion of that ceremony, and a satisfactory solution for France was reached thanks to the tact and firmness that General Boulanger was able to deploy. M. Blaine, Secretary of State, who was always one of Bismarck’s most complacent flatterers, had hoisted on an official ship an immense German flag that completely hid our tricolor flag.

Blaine, Secretary of State, who was always one of Bismarck’s most complacent flatterers, had hoisted on an official ship an immense German flag that completely hid our tricolor flag. This amiable Yankee wanted at any cost to cross the two flags, on the pretext that at the time of the war of independence the French army, which had aided the American, included some German mercenaries. General Boulanger told him that if the German colors weren’t immediately removed from the proximity of our flag the French mission would have no choice but to leave. The intervention of President Arthur was necessary to overcome the stubbornness of his Secretary of State. Nevertheless, this serious incident was quickly forgotten, and the citizens of the United States in no way reproved the energetic attitude of the French general, who continued to receive unequivocal marks of esteem and sympathy everywhere in his travels. Arrived in Canada, on this soil where the French imprint seems ineffaceable, the French mission and its chief were profoundly touched by the affection he was surrounded by on the part of the population. On April 16, 1882 General Boulanger was charged by General Billot, minister of War, with the important functions of director of the infantry. There he revealed his admirable qualities as administrator and, above all, his patriotic vigilance, his unfailing devotion, his decisiveness, the correctness of his point of view. With his active support the Prytan�e Militaire, the schools at St Maixent and the Enfants de Troupe were reorganized. We owe him the rewriting of the regulations on infantry maneuvers, the organization of instruction platoons, the considerable development given firing instruction, the generalization of combat fire in all infantry corps, the adoption of the 1882 model sack, etc... Three ministers of War had the good sense to keep him at the head of that important service. The army lost nothing in this. We know what virile enthusiasm, what unshakeable confidence was felt by all hearts when hearing the patriotic allocutions of the young general during his inspections. The eloquent speech he gave at la Fl�che in 1882 drew tears from the veterans and students of the Prytan�e Militaire who said with emotion: “No one ever spoke to us this way before.” “Work, young men, work more, keep working so that your families will be proud of you; work so as to render useful service to the republic that is waiting for your young generation with the greatest confidence. “For you are all, or almost all of you, sons of officers or state functionaries, towards whom you have contracted a commitment of honor. And if we seek you out from among French youth, it’s not so much to come to the assistance of your parents, as because we know we will find in you young souls habituated from childhood to all the sacrifices, as well as to all the nobility of our military poverty. “Bring within these walls the gentle lessons learned in your families; make yourselves worthy of them through your delicate and elevated sentiments. Renounce, children of the end of the nineteenth century, the quasi-barbarous habits that have been born in these rude times, where force seemed superior to right, and where it was necessary to break the child in order to train the man through the harsh bullying of despotism.” Another time, as delegate to the school of St Maixent, he cried out before the statue of Colonel Denfert Rochereau: “As for the true community of origin, I say to you, officer cadets of St Maixent, as I will say to the officer cadets of St Cyr, our forefathers proclaimed it in the face of the world in 1789, and they cemented it by their blood shed in common on all the glorious and painful roads passed over by France in the last hundred years.” Promoted General of Division February 18, 1884, General Boulanger was immediately called to the command of the division of occupation in Tunisia (February 21). His task was that of a pacifier and organizer; he applied himself to this with a zeal and self-abnegation beyond praise. It was known in the division how much work and fatigue the intrepid general absorbed. A tireless horseman, he brought two ordinance officers with him and travelled stages of 20 to 25 leagues amid arid solitudes in temperatures varying between 45 and 50 degrees centigrade. The rare incidents of the route were carefully noted and pointed out to the attention of his companions. Here was a Roman road, elsewhere the last vestiges of an aqueduct or encampment, further on ruins to be photographed. And barely arrived at the end of his ride, they went right into the middle of the natives, whose complaints had to be heard, whose mistrust had to be calmed. And while showing himself to be just and benevolent towards the populations, it was indispensable to demonstrate before their eyes the prestige of our army by surrounding the least military solemnities with a certain pomp (orders of the day and distribution of rewards to soldiers.) In a word, they had to find inspiration ion the strong and intelligent motto of Bugeaud: Ense et aratro. An incident that occurred in Tunis during the month of June 1856 cast a light on the firmness of the general and the jealous care with which he protected the honor of the flag and the army. Here is the tale as we find it in the book by M. Barbou, according to an eyewitness: “One evening, at the Th�atre Italien in Tunis a young French officer threw a bouquet on the stage to a singer. The latter disdainfully pushed this homage away with her foot and, with ostentatious bad taste, placed in her d�colletage a flower that a young Italian had tossed at the same time. “Rendered indignant by this ridiculous insult, the officers present, who were joined by navy officers from the squadron stationed at La Goulette, loudly protested and made such a racket that the curtain had to be lowered. The entire hall rose in tumult, and since the audience was made up of spectators of different nationalities, the most lively words were exchanged.

At the exit an Italian named Tessi, hidden behind a door, threw himself on a lieutenant of the Chasseurs and in a cowardly way, before the latter knew what was happening, punched him in the face with his two fists. Our officer was going to kill him when the Zouaves, coming from their posts, took away the aggressor. “The next day the French tribunal, which had jurisdiction over all foreigners, condemned the Italian to a light sentence; six days of imprisonment. “Before a serious insult so insufficiently avenged, the entire garrison was enraged. Not only every one of our soldiers felt the insult, but it became certain that following this repression, which was the equivalent of an acquittal, they would see reproduced daily the aggressions that our men had received during the Regency at the beginning of the occupation. “General Boulanger, foreseeing this result, sharing in the legitimate discontent of those he commanded, and wanting to both protect their honor and ensure their safety, published an order of the day saying in substance that our officers and soldiers, if they were provoked in the future and violently attacked, had the obligation to use their arms in self defense. “There are people who call themselves French and who dare condemn this order of the day. “A presidential decree removed the patriotic general from the command of his troops to give the position to which officer? M. Cambon, the Resident General.” After an initial outburst of indignation which had him write a letter in which he demanded his immediate discharge, General Boulanger, a soldier above all, suppressed his feelings of revolt and obeyed the orders of the minister of War, who enjoined him to remain in his post so as not to reveal in the face of the foreigner so serious a conflict between the civil and the military powers. General Campenon allowed the commander of the occupying corps to hope that that iniquitous decree would be repealed. The announced and awaited reparation not occurring, General Boulanger, after a month of vain waiting, embarked at La Goulette and unexpectedly returned to Paris in the first days of August 1885. The officer sacrificed to the obsequious policies of the ministry had at least had the consolation of receiving from his comrades, as well as from the principal native leaders, an ovation worthy of him. His repose in Paris did not last long. He was needed. On January 8, 1886 he entered the Freycinet cabinet. From that date until March 31, 1887, date of the arrival of the louche Rouvier ministry, he dedicated his every instant to the patriotic task he had accepted. He immediately showed himself to be the implacable enemy of routine, coteries, and the wasting of funds. Defeating the calculated inertia of the war bureaus, putting a halt to old abuses, putting an end to scandalous preferential treatments, and carrying out salutary reforms: these were the constant themes of his labors. He knew how to choose his collaborators, and brought on as his assistant an indefatigable worker like himself, Colonel Jung, who mightily assisted him in his work. General Boulanger’s enemies have joked about some of his minor reforms, like the authorization of beards, the painting of guardhouses in the three national colors, the designation of barracks with the names of illustrious warriors of France, replacing names like Pepini�re, Minimes, Chateau-d’Eau..., but they have willfully closed their eyes to the capital reforms of this intelligent organizer: his proposed military law (adoption of three years of service instead of five and suppression of exemptions), the reorganization of the command of our fortified places, the adoption of the Lebel rifle, the suppression of preliminary instruction for corps chiefs before grand maneuvers, and finally, the most important reform of all, the replacement of defensive tactics with offensive tactics, more in conformity with the national genius. “Only the offensive allows the obtaining of decisive results; the troop does not exist that can hold out against a Frenchman when he’s enthused.” These are his very words. The general is not unaware of this saying of a tactician: “War is a cumbersome guest that it is good to lodge in the enemy’s house.” Is it necessary to recall his constant concern for the health of his men, for the improvements to be introduced to their nourishment, their clothing, their barracks? And the suppression of the Sunday review, which leaves the soldier a whole day of liberty, and vacations granted at fixed periods to those whose conduct has been good (five days for the new year, eight at Easter), and finally the unifying of payment? He suppressed many routine errors and unjustifiable measures, notably the rule by the terms of which no one can be named to or promoted within the Legion of Honor if he hadn’t held his military rank for at least two years. You can now be nominated or promoted the day after the one on which you obtained a new rank. The minister neglected no detail, had his eye on everyone. He visited the schools at St Cyr, Fontainebleau, Val-de-Gr�ce and the societies founded with a patriotic end; and as always, his honest and incisive word, his patriotic encouragements comforted the country. As the school in St Cyr he said to the First Battalion of France: “Never forget, young men, that armies have a heart, as they have a head, and that the education of the soldier must be intimately connected to his education. “Open your spirits wide to the ideas of your century; allow yourselves to be penetrated by the wind of progress which will carry your privileged generation so far and high. “Prepare yourselves for this high mission of the army of today, which gathers around it, for the fatherland, all the good will and all the devotions of our generous country. “ And further on, in speaking of the flag: “It will find again those days of glory; I am more firmly convinced of this than ever since I have seen your elevated feelings of patriotism, since I have read in your eyes the noble motto that should guide every officer truly worthy of the name Frenchman: EVERYTHING FOR FRANCE!” The government, presided over by M.

Freycinet, forced to take rigorous measures against families having ruled in France, a decree appeared June 22, 1886 that forbade heads of these families and their direct heirs in the order of primogeniture the territory of the republic, and authorized the government to apply this measure to other members of these families. Article Four of this decree forbade any of them from exercising command in the armies of land and sea. In this circumstance, the minister of War simply performed his duty. The Duke d’Aumale having been removed, like the others, from the controls of the army, wrote the president of the republic an offensive letter, and was immediately requested to cross the border. In similar cases the former monarchy did better: it didn’t put its adversaries out, it locked them in. There then began what has been called the “war of the letters.” The Orelanists thought it clever to publish the letters sent by General Boulanger to the Duke d’Aumale on the occasion of his promotion to brigadier general. The jesuitry of the Orleanist agents was clear for all to see. The first letter, which was apocryphal, was disavowed by the general as soon as it was published. But immediately after this disavowal, and unknown to its author, they published a second one, this time authentic, and conceived in quite other terms. They shamelessly applied to this new letter the disavowal of the general that applied to the first, and in this way it was easy to dupe the public for 24 hours. They thus managed for a day or two to have it believed that the general had denied his signature. A clear and loyal explanation had become necessary. The following letter, written by the general to M. Limbourg and reproduced by the entire press, clearly reestablished the facts and accompanied them with commentaries too instructive to be kept silent: “Paris, August 3, 1886 Monsieur: The newspapers published four letters signed with my name and addressed to the Duke d’Aumale. Since the first was manifestly false I could not recognize the authenticity of the text of the others until the originals were produced. I remained silent. Today, I declare authentic the last three letters, those which the Duke d’Aumale charged you with publishing. I am ready to do you the honor of not judging your master’s act, nor the task you accepted. Nor do I deign to give you, on the content of your letters, any explanations. You could not understand them. You were prefect of the republic so as to better it; I an minister of the republic in order to serve it. I serve it against you and yours. I deserved your hatred, I desire nothing so much as continuing to render myself worthy of it. When the Duke d’Aumale, without taking into account military regulations, sought to unite around himself, under the pretext – and with a goal which appears clearly today – of a witch hunt against offciers, many of whom were unknown to him, I was charged with bringing him the representations of the then minister of War; I obeyed. When the princely conspiracy put me in the position of choosing between my former chief and the republic, I remained faithful to the republic. Once the law was voted I carried it out. And if it should occur to your seditious friends to pass from words to acts, the author of the letters to the Duke d’Aumale will simply, but very energetically, carry out his duties against the Duke d’Aumale’s friends. General Boulanger” We know that this question of princes brought M. de Lareinty and General Boulager to the dueling ground. This pistol duel took place at Chalais, near Meudon July 16, 1886. The conditions of the combat made the encounter very dangerous, the adversaries having to fire at 25 paces. The results were null. The general, abandoning his rights as the offended party, left the choice of arms to his adversary. These two men, of an equally chivalrous character, cordially shook hands on the field. The same day the inauguration of the Military Circle of the Army and Navy took place, installed in the former Splendide-Hotel, at the corner of avenue de l’Opera and rue de la Paix. A happy innovation, which proved that the minister concerned himself with the well-being of the army at all levels of the military hierarchy. Officers find lodging and meals there at a moderate price. The establishment contains a library, several work rooms, fencing halls, etc... A great and sympathetic ovation was given that evening to General Boulanger, as much by the officers as from the crowd gathered on the Place de l’Opera and all the neighboring avenues and streets. The day before, the minster of War had been promoted Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor.

The day before, the minster of War had been promoted Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor. November 4, 1886, he went to preside at la Bossi�re, near Rambouillet, at the inauguration of an orphanage founded by Commandant Henriot to receive the orphans of non-commissioned officers and soldiers. In a speech worthy of that philanthropic work, the minster thanked, in the name of the country, the generous benefactor who had made such noble use of his fortune. April 21, 1887, Paris and the provinces were in a state of excitement. The Schnaebel� incident had just aggravated an already tense situation. We were inches from a complete break with Germany. Amid the universal confusion, the minister of War felt firm and awaited events without flinching. In the ministry, only M. Goblet took a clearly firm and patriotic position at the general’s side. The dispute was able to be settled diplomatically, but the alert had been lively, and the loudmouths of the Palais Bourbon remained quiet for more than a week. In order to take their revenge on a ministry that had stood up to Bismarck, they overthrew it May 17, 1887, and in exchange obtained the Rouvier ministry. The dignity of the country was sold short in the bargain. On June 29, 1887 General Boulanger was named to the command of the 13th army corps in Clermont-Ferrand. * We will never forget the popular and spontaneous demonstrations that took place along the path of the general and at the Gare de Lyon upon his departure from Paris on July 8, 1887. More than 100,000 persons took part in it. We also know what a brilliant reception was given in Clermont. The enthusiasm and the sympathy overflowed from these crowds. In Clermont nothing less was spoken of than the raising of triumphal arches. “Save them,” he said, “for the generals who will defeat our enemies.” Upon arriving at his new post the commander of the 13th Corps laid out in simple terms he past and future line of conduct: “When I was minister of War I carried out republican policies, as was my duty; here I am no longer a minister, I am a soldier, and I am only here to act as a military man.” General Boulanger immediately dedicated himself to his task with the ardor, activity, and energy he had given so much proof of in Tunisia. In the course of the inspections he had to carry out in various points of his command, the love and the confidence of the army were respectfully demonstrated, to the furthest limits tolerable under military discipline. But the populace, held to less discretion, didn’t spare him their outspoken sympathy. A short while later M. Jules Ferry had the bad idea of showing off at the expense of the commander of the 13th Corps. Without delay he received the unexpected visit of two of the general’s friends: Count Dillon and General Faverot. These gentlemen had come to offer the deputy of the Vosges, on the part of the new marshal Saint-Arnaud, an exchange of shots at 25 paces in an indeterminate number, continuing until one of the two adversaries was touched, or the exchange of a single shot. M. Jules Ferry objected that these distances were a bit short and he made known to the general that it would have to wait for another time. All the incidents that followed little by little dug a deep ditch between the opportunists and the general who was partisan of radical reforms. His enemies took advantage of everything to discredit him in the mind of the masses. All weapons were good to hinder his ever growing popularity. The coarsest traps, the most perfidious machinations were used against him. The most unreasonable projects were attributed to him. The specter of dictatorship, the phantom of war was brandished before the country. The Rouvier cabinet didn’t fail to participate in this repugnant task. But the more his enemies gave themselves over to movement, the more the general enclosed himself in his military role. This disdainful silence didn’t please the politicians who had sworn to destroy him. Their attacks became so violent that the commander of the 13th Corps had to defend himself in speech and writing. But he had doubtless forgotten a phrase of Laubardemont’s, whose worth his enemies knew: “Give me two lines of a man’s writing and I’ll see to it that he’s hung.” This entire disgusting comedy performed around a loyal soldier and an honest man could not but end with having the 30 day arrest applied to him by minister Ferron for having declared (which, incidentally, no one any longer doubts) that in the Caffarel affair the goal pursued by the government was to implicate General Boulanger at whatever cost. His arrest completed, he immediately left for Paris where he took part in the labors of the Higher Commission for the Classing of Officers. Entirely dedicated to his task, the general fled as much as he could from the demonstrations the crowd prepared for him on all occasions, and he returned to Clermont without having provided his enraged enemies the least complaint against him. But a factor more powerful than ministers, more powerful than the senate and the Chamber suddenly joined in: the country, which demands something other than ministerial crises and financial scandals;

But a factor more powerful than ministers, more powerful than the senate and the Chamber suddenly joined in: the country, which demands something other than ministerial crises and financial scandals; the country, increasingly disgusted with the sterile parliamentarianism that ruins and dishonors it and which so loudly manifested its exhaustion and its disgust. The 54,000 voters of February 26, who inscribed on their ballots the name of the commander of the 13th Army Corps had less obeyed a call than a sentiment of spontaneous reprobation against a government and two obsolete assemblies lacking in prestige. The partisans of the opportunist oligarchy, who get fatter daily at the expense of the taxpayers, felt an increasingly disagreeable sensation before these threatening votes. Powerless to muzzle universal suffrage, they resolved to suppress the man these preferences honored. It was in vain that the commander of the 13th Army Corps, called out despite himself by his voters, denied any initiative in this electoral movement and addressed the following letter to the ministry of War: “Clermont-Ferrand, March 3 Dear Minister: Initiatives have just been taken concerning me on the subject of this month’s legislative elections. My formal desire being, by reason of the situation I occupy and particularly the epoch we are passing through, to exclusively dedicate myself to my military duties, I have the honor of asking you, in order to put an end to the demonstrations that have just occurred and which tend to be renewed around my name, either to please publish the present letter or to authorize me to write and publish one in which I will ask my friends to not waste on me votes I cannot accept. General Boulanger.” But his enemies still did not lay down their arms. The country was witness to a broad witch hunt against the general. Police harassment, calumnies, removal from active duty, placing him in retired status while perhaps waiting for his being placed outside the law! The voters of the Aisne, of the Dordogne and the Nord have already answered in their manner to these imprudent provocations. Others still will come give their votes to this patriot, this simple citizen whose popularity holds in check an entire discredited and contemptible parliament; to this good man who, without any resources other than his civic virtues and his military past, spread disarray in the spheres where they so happily use the public, in the high underworld of finance, in the offices where everything is bought, sold and adulterated, except the sovereign will of the millions of voters who are going to come on stage. – Louis de Jonqui�res The Boulangist Movement Archive

The Boulangist Movement 1889 Letter of General Boulanger to his Voters Source: L’Intransigeant, January 31, 1889; Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor. Translator’s note: In the aftermath of his crushing victory on January 27, and as his seizing of power was still anxiously hoped for by his followers, Boulanger published the following letter in “L’Intransigeant,” the propaganda newspaper edited by Henri Rochefort. Voters of the Seine: Still under the power of the profound emotion that marvelous demonstration of Sunday left in me, I nevertheless don’t want to delay the expression of my gratitude to the admirable populace that bravely marched in serried ranks against the parliamentary coalition composed of all of those who audaciously proclaim themselves for the republic, which their errors, their weakness, and their intrigues have so seriously compromised. Never, under any regime has an official campaign of infamous attacks, of calculated falsehoods and odious threats been more scandalously carried out against a candidate. With one fell swoop, ballot in hand you have swept away the slanders and the slanderers. The National Republican party, based on the probity of functionaries and the sincerity of universal suffrage, is now founded. The Chamber, which combated it with an unprecedented fury, has nothing before it but its dissolution, which it will not escape. Voters of the Seine! It is to you, to your energy and your good sense that the Fatherland, our great Fatherland, will owe a debt for having rid us of the parasites who dishonor it while devouring it. The republic is now open to all Frenchmen of good will. May they enter, and may the others leave! Vive la France! Vive la R�publique! General Boulanger January 29, 1889 The Boulangist Archive

The Boulangist Movement 1888 Boulangism and the Young by Jules Tellier Source: Le Parti National, May 29, 1888; Translated: by Mitchell Abidor; CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2009. M. Maurice Barr�s is a very talented novelist and a journalist of much wit. Among the young journalists of my generation (I mean those who are about 25 years old) I am not far from thinking that none have more natural gifts, and in any case I’m sure that none are able to make more skillful use of theirs. It is certain that he will “arrive,” in the slightly strange meaning given it by adolescents of large appetite. And what’s even more important, it is absolutely certain that he will write beautiful prose works. I recall having already praised him, and I’m firmly resolved to do it again. And now here I am feeling quite comfortable in telling you that for about a month M. Maurice Barr�s has profoundly annoyed me. Last month, in the “Revue Ind�pendante” M. Barr�s saluted General Boulanger in the name of “intellectual youth.” If he meant by this the students, they are hardly Boulangists, as we know. And if he meant young men of letters, they hardly care enough about the “brave general” to either attack or defend him, being completely occupied with the handling of phrases and the divine game of rhymes. I gently made this observation to M. Barr�s in another organ. And God only knows if I am still persuaded that this is the pure truth! But M. Barr�s isn’t giving up. These past days he again praised M. Boulanger in the name of his friends. (And, my God, what friends is he speaking of?) He declared that he took no account of the student demonstrations. And for my part I ask no better than to take no account of them either, but we have to come to an agreement. For M. Barr�s these young people only shouted “Down with Boulanger” after having consumed too much beer. But is it certain that those who shouted “Vive!” had absorbed less? And then there are the Normaliens, of whom 117 out of 130 declared themselves against the dictator dear to M. Barr�s. Is it that the �cole Normale has become a kind of official brasserie and that from dawn to dusk they give themselves over to gargantuan agapes? Frankly, such arguments are not worthy of an intelligence of that distinction, and we would expect better of him. But, M. Barr�s will say to me, whether beer had something to do with it or not, that isn’t so important. Just the young having some fun. The simple joy of demonstrating had a lot to do with the demonstrations. Should I say that we never know who speaks seriously and who is joking? Should I admit that there are moments when I suspect M. Barr�s of mocking me, himself, “intellectual youth” and even the general? And will M. Barr�s also tell me that intellectual youth is “tired of parliamentarianism?” But what does it matter if it was a hundred times more tired than it is? However tired I might be, there is no plausible reason for me to prostrate myself before the first passerby. Who is the general and what does he want? Does he have any personal value and ideas on government, and what are they? And until I know this, why would I take him for guide in my lassitude? Buddhism too is something quite different from current parliamentarianism, yet the fatigue caused me by the speeches of M. Goblet have never given me the idea of converting to Shakia Mouni. Note that M. Barr�s doesn’t only think that Boulangism is the necessary end point to our political lassitude. He claims more. He wants Boulangism to be the logical and natural solution to the troubles of our adolescents, the vague disquiet of the young who have kept the taste and the regret for action, and which is lacking a faith in order to act. And so I rise up completely. The words with which his recent book ended” “You alone, oh Teacher, Whoever you might be, religion, axiom, or prince of men!” M. Maurice Barr�s committed that singular error in taste of inscribing them as the epigraph to his first article on the general. Oh Barr�s, Barr�s! How you spoiled and profaned that poor sentence that seemed to me so beautiful, and sad, and profound, and which I sang to myself in my moments of boredom. How much better you’d do leaving the divine cult of letters out of all these thing! And it is precisely in favor of letters the M. Barr�s claims to be speaking. The republicans treated letters with disdain. M. Weiss, M. Louis M�mard, M. Jules Simon, M. Soury, brand new republicans, set them to the side. I say nothing against this, and I feel bad about it. But however discontented I might be, why would my discontent lead me to rally to the general? Does M. Boulanger have insights into literature? And what would lead me to think so? Could it be that because regarding the German invasion, and in return for financing, he carries out the tasks of a bookseller which neither M. Barr�s nor myself want to charge ourselves with? Is there something else, and what is it? Has M. Barr�s had the good fortune of having M. Boulanger reveal to him in the course of some private conversation his ideas on the naturalism of M. Zola, the “d�cadisme” of M. Verlaine, the symbolism of M. Mor�as, and the idealo-realism of M. Jules Case?

Jules Case? If this is the case, let him reveal it to us and we’ll see. I know that the general has on his side a novelist, M. Rochefort and two poets, Messrs. Clovis Hugues and Paul D�roul�de. And surely the verses of Messrs. D�roul�de and Hugues have their interest. We can find them very distressing or very amusing in accordance with our humor and depending on if we have an inclination more towards a Democritian or a Heraclitian concept of things. But perhaps these two rhapsodists poorly represent modern poetry. And perhaps as well “intellectual youth” cares as much about them as a fish does about apples. What could I add? M. Barr�s complains that those who govern us have insufficiently admired Hugo, and he feels the need to defend his memory against the coarseness of their commentaries. But does he think that M. Laguerre admires him more? For my part, I attended a conference of the young and intelligent lawyers on the great poet, and I swear on M. Barr�s that this is how he quoted the final stanza of the “Chatiments:” S’il n’en reste plus que mille, je serai le milli�me, S’il n’en reste plus que cent, je brave encore Sylla, S’il n’en reste plus que dix, je serai le dixi�me, Et s’il n’en reste plus qu’un, je serai celui-la! [1] M. Laguerre, M. Rochefort, M. Clovis Hugues, M. D�roul�de, I understand full well that they won’t be M. Boulanger’s advisers if he were to arrive at power. But why would those who would replace them care more about literature? And after all, will those who govern us ever care about it? M. Rouher didn’t understand poetry any better than M. Ferry. Th�ophile Gautier, a supporter of the empire, waited twenty years for the empire to grant him a seat as senator or even a library; he waited in vain. Napoleon III congratulated Saint-Beuve for “his charming articles” in the “Moniteur” when the great critic had already left the newspaper four years earlier. Louis-Philippe was mortally wounded that Musset had used the familiar form in an admiring sonnet. Louis XIV gave Chapelain a pension three times greater than that of Corneille. The elderly Flaubert passed his life saying that all governments hate literature. And the divine poet Alfred de Vigny wrote a whole book to prove this. M. Barr�s knows this as well as I do. Why then does he forget it today? In any case, let him continue his Boulangist campaign: this is an affair between himself and his conscience. But let him at least do us the kindness of speaking only in his own name, since we haven’t given him a mandate to speak in ours. And as a general rule, whoever wants to bow down should bow down alone, and it is always wrong to claim to have the muses bow down along with you. When – at the time when Lamartine was under suspicion and Hugo in exile – M. Ars�ne Houssaye in 1853 published a collective anthology that he titled: “Poetry for Napoleon III,” the author of ‘The Hundred and One Sonnets” overstepped his rights by far. M. Barr�s no doubt has more right to represent the young of 1888 than M. Houssaye did to represent poetry in 1853. But even so, if he wants to raise a monument to M. Boulanger, he should inscribe his name alone on its frontispiece. There will be a few of us to think that this is already a lot, and that in doing so he does a great enough honor to the general from Clermont. 1. The actual final stanza of the poem "Ultima Verba” is: Si l’on n’est plus que mille, eh bien, j’en suis ! Si m�me Ils ne sont plus que cent, je brave encor Sylla ; S’il en demeure dix, je serai le dixi�me ; Et s’il n’en reste qu’un, je serai celui-l� ! Thomas Jonathan Archive

The Boulangist Movement 1889 To the People, My Sole Judge Translated: from the original broadsheet by Mitchell Abidor. I address myself to all honest men and not to the judges of the high court, whose competence and impartiality I don’t recognize. If this special tribunal, whose decision all of France knows in advance, this political tribunal charged with condemning its adversary, this tribunal whose sentence can only be iniquitous and odious, had contented itself with charging me with this so-called crime of a coup, which public contempt has already rendered judgment on, I would have remained quiet, leaving it to the country to judge my judges. But realizing the ridiculousness of the accusation, and not being able to even furnish in support of it the shadow of a proof, M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, the valet they sought out to carry out this task, at the refusal of the magistrates tried through crafty means to fool public opinion. Forced to conceal the emptiness of its argument, not even able to sustain the majority of the inventions upon which it had based the demand for prosecution placed on the desk of the Chamber; forced, for example, to no longer even speak in its new indictment of the voyage to the United States during which I was originally accused of beginning the preparations of my conspiracy, the Procurator General who carries out M. Th�venet’s affairs wanted to avenge his masters, who all of France accuses of being nothing but thieves, and tried to have the country believe that I was no better than them. It is thus that with a cynicism previously unheard of in a French magistrate, this talentless novelist imagined the novel which he claims is a judicial document. Attacked this time in my honor as a soldier, in my honor as an honest man, I could no longer remain silent. I owed it to my friends, to myself to confound the slanders and the slanderers, something which, incidentally, is not difficult. In fact, a happy chance placed in my friends’ hands the high court’s entire dossier, and thus upset M. Beaurepaire’s plans. Without this chance it would have been impossible for me to respond to the accusations which I was totally ignorant of, and whose very origin I couldn’t have guessed at, for it would never have occurred to me that any magistrate, even the most unworthy, would have had the audacity to base his slanderous indictment solely on the so-called revelations of a secret agent whose cover had long since been blown and the accusations of a swindler who M. Constans had publicly admitted paying 7,000 francs per deposition! For this is all there is in the work of the Procurator General; this astounding magistrate seems to have forgotten all the other depositions, the depositions of honest men which confound the slanders of the swindler and the secret agent. He doubtless hoped that not knowing the accusations I couldn’t respond to them before the debate in the High Court; he counted on the fact that the past of the swindler Buret being unknown we would, with this sensational deposition, have an effect on the audience. He couldn’t imagine that M. Constans would confess to having paid for the deposition of this false witness. He said to himself: “They will probably later discover the truth, but after the judgment, after the condemnation, and the blow will have done its work. They’ll be able to say that General Boulanger was convicted of misappropriation of funds and that he didn’t even dare defend himself!” But even the most skilful criminals can’t foresee everything. M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire hadn’t foreseen that his dossier would fall into my friends’ hands before the hearing, and now that the High Court is carrying out its task, that it is arriving at a decision that was written out in advance, all of France will know in advance with what proofs, with what falsified documents, with what paid witnesses this parody of justice is being played. The General’s Military Career In order to confound the Procurator General, in order to convict him of falsehood I want, whatever the length of this refutation, to respond to his indictment point by point. In the first case, it is strange that this magistrate, who speaks at such length of the military career of my friend Dillon in order to slander him and shamelessly lie, seems to be unaware of mine. From reading his strange document it appears that my career only began in 1882. And yet, at that time I already had 28 years of service, twenty companies, four wounds, and two citations. Perhaps I should after all be grateful to M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire for not having said that if I fell four times on the battlefield it’s because I wanted to be wounded on purpose with the goal of later conquering an unhealthy popularity! Nevertheless, in 1882, being brigadier general and director of the infantry I had, according to M. de Beaurepaire, “excessive ambitions.” We can clearly see here that M. Th�venet’s prosecutor is ignorant of the modest situation of a brigadier general, who can hardly have “excessive ambitions.” The Supposed Agents Here I would like to point out the first false accusation. M. de Beaurepaire claims that during that period, I sent an agent to a military bookstore in order to have him spread my biography around the army. This is false, and I defy the Procurator General and the bookseller in question, M. Baudoin, to prove that it is I who sent them a man they call my agent. The indictment then declares that in Tunis “I pursued the execution of my plans,” and that I there had various agents, among others a woman. I don’t know if a woman, young or old, came to see me in Tunis; but what I do know is that no woman served as my agent and that if the fact had been true my honorable adversary M. Cambon would certainly of spoken of it in his deposition. The False Witness Buret What is more, in Paris I had another agent, “a three times condemned so-called journalist .” Is it of Buret that M.

Quesnay de Beuarepaire is speaking, without realizing that In doing so he demonstrates what the deposition of this swindler, purchased by M. Constans, is worth? Yes, it appears certain that at that time Buret was someone’s agent, but it was M. Constans and not me. Was it not in fact M. Constans who confided to this Buret the writing of a dispatch in which he has me offer the Ministry of War as part of the new scam he had just been put at the head of, a scam that failed? Yes, I knew Buret at the time, who I had the weakness of thinking an honest man because he had been presented to me by a minister and by deputies. I knew Buret until the day when I learned that he tried to coin money with my name, and I realized that he only came to the ministry to give himself the appearance of a credit that was absolutely imaginary. It was even in regard to him that the very day that I showed him the door I ordered the closing of the ministry to all intriguers. Yes, it was that incident that suggested to me the idea of closing the ministry of War to all the fabricators of crooked affairs, even if they were senators or deputies. I call on the memories of my chief of cabinet and all the officers around me. Even more, and it doesn’t cost me to say this, I profoundly repent having in my ignorance of politics believed at the time that it was enough to be the close friend of M. Constans and other deputies to be an honest man; I repent for having sincerely believed too easily in Buret’s honorability. But you, Monsieur Pocurator General, who know him well, you know that the minister of the Interior paid 7000 francs for his testimony. How can you, how dare you, solely on the basis of this purchased testimony, build up odious accusations of fraud? Coffee in Tablet Form You say that in Tunis I was short of money? Why? What need did I have of it? On the contrary, I had one of the best paid positions in the army. Here I am quoting your accusation: “He was lacking in money. He had recourse to dubious affairs in order to attempt to procure some. He and his agent agreed to share a bribe of 210,000 francs if he had his division try out and the ministry accept a system of coffee in tablet form. “ It is impossible to bring together in fewer lines a greater number of odious calumnies and absurdities. What you advance as a serious, proven, accusation is based solely on the deposition of Buret. You had come to you and interrogated men with an interest in this affair, among others M. Mar�chal I believe. And what did they answer you? That they never saw me! That they’d never spoken to me! In order to give a semblance of truth to this odiously false accusation, you seized a letter at Buret’s domicile, a voucher where it is question of G... Your witness, a bought off swindler, says that “G...” means General Boulanger, but the lie is flagrant. If it was a question of me there would at least have been “the G..."And without insisting too much , given the other depositions, convinced that Buret abused the latter along with so many others, all of France already knows that this initial designates a politician that everyone knows, and not General Boulanger. I was never involved in this affair, any more than any other. I was one day asked to have my division try it, as is done at every moment throughout the French Army; the officers involved told me it was awful! I transmitted the reports, and that’s all! Admit that businessmen who would have given 210,000 francs in commission to a general so he could declare that their product was detestable would have deserved being sent to the asylum at Charenton. Baron Kohn de Reinach I am now beginning to see that the truth is that in this affair my uprightness, the way in which I simply transmitted the unfavorable opinions of the chiefs of corps, created for me quite particular enmities which for a long time I was unable to explain and whose origin I now think I can guess at. The man with the greatest interest in this affair – he admits this in his deposition – -was the Baron Kohn de Reinach, uncle and father- in- law of M. Joseph Reinach of the “R�publique Fran?aise.” I refused to do the business of the opportunists, and it is to punish me that they are playing the role of petty Ciceros, attacking me vehemently. I only saw the Baron de Reinach once at Buret’s who, I now understand, must have been one of his agents. I had been imprudent enough to dine at Buret’s, whose infamy I hadn’t yet suspected. But M. de Reinach is lying when he speaks of my familiarity with his straw man. On the contrary, having seen that this dinner had the suspicious character of a crooked affair, I left the house as quickly as possible. I began to be on my guard against Buret, and it was shortly thereafter that I expelled him from the ministry. The Affair of the Epaulettes I pass now to the “affair of the epaulettes.” You say: “He places his authority and hise title at the service of an epaulette merchant at the price of a commission of twenty centimes the pair, to be shared between him and his agent.” In this affair you have three depositions: that of the swindler Buret, who accused me; that of the principal interested party, M.

that of the principal interested party, M. Dupuy, the epaulette merchant who declared in the clearest fashion that I was never mixed up in that crooked affair; and the deposition of a former minister, of a deputy, the honorable M. Granet, who affirms that the day that he spoke to me of the “M. Dupuy Affair” I answered him: “I don’t want to get mixed up in this, these kinds of things have nothing to do with me. Tell M. Dupuy to find the appropriate director. I’ll do what the director decides.” And so, of these three depositions, which do you choose? You only retain one, that of the swindler witness, deprived of his civil and political rights, a witness about whom M. Constans (this must be ceaselessly repeated) publicly confessed having paid 7000 francs for the testimony. How shameful your job is , and what opinion will foreigners now have of a country where can be found so infamous a magistrate? I continue to follow step by step the indictment upon which the High Court will judge me. The Forty-Four Portraits You claim, M. de Beaurepaire, that as minister of War I had forty-four portraits of myself made , and you perfidiously add that, “ I even had some of these portraits made in Germany.” I am surprised by the number of 44 portraits; I thought there were many more! But you are lying when you claim that I had them done. I affirm that I never involved myself in having a single one of my portraits done. It is true that I never went after the countless manufacturers who earned money in selling portraits of me, likeness that were more or less a good , and sometimes ridiculous. If this is a crime, I accuse myself of it and it is, incidentally, the only one I committed. The So-Called Subsidies I now arrive at the most contemptible part of your work, Monsieur Procurator General. For this time you not only alter the truth, but even more you force me to reveal what should have remained unknown about the use of secret funds, for it is perhaps only for the minister of War that secret funds have their raison d’�tre, on condition, of course, that their use remain unknown. Your indictment claims that I gave 242,693 francs in subsidies to the press. This is another lie. The subsidized newspapers were subsidized by the minister of the Interior or the minister of Foreign Affairs, and not by me. And it would, incidentally be strange that having so badly used the secret fund that I should be the only minister to give a precise accounting. It is clear to even the most na�ve that if I had had something to hide I would have burned that accounting, AS WAS MY RIGHT, and you would not have found it at M. Reichert’s. No, M. de Beaurepaire, I didn’t give a single subsidy with a political character while I was at the ministry of War. I found it necessary, at a grave moment, to organize my intelligence service as it never had been, and if my patriotism wasn’t even stronger than the interests of my defense, I could say between which men and myself the individuals – often journalists – whose names or initials you found were intermediaries. I am proud to have done, during that period, my entire duty, and to have done it well. Carry out the investigation, if you dare! Bring forth these intermediaries and tell all of Europe who our agents were, even in the salons of Berlin and Rome. But you won’t dare to, because you know full well that the country will make you pay the punishment of traitors! You speak of a hired hand who was condemned for an offense to decency. I never had a hired hand, and I have never bothered myself with the antecedents of those who have written for me; I don’t even know what condemnation or person you are alluding to. I also absolutely don’t know the name of the man condemned under my ministry who, you say, I recommended to his judges. Until now I have found nothing among the evidence in the High Court file that relates to this. SECRET FUNDS AND RESERVE FUNDS But I return to the question of secret funds and reserve funds, willfully mixed together by you and which I owe it to my friends to clarify. In the first place, your indictment commits an error. In 1884 I did not have 760,000 francs in secret funds, but rather 740,000 francs, the navy having given me 40,000 francs for intelligence I had provided it; serious and important intelligence about things of interest to that department. On the other hand, it is false that I had at my disposal more money than my predecessors. Without going back further than three years, the secret funds were: In 1883: 924,000 francs In 1884: 1,142,000 francs In 1885: 902,000 francs Let us calculate the difference between these sums and those at my disposal; let us remember the serious events that occurred during my ministry, and you will easily understand why I was forced to touch the reserve funds and to take a relatively small sum from it. The Reserve Funds Until 1886 I was authorized in this by the example of my predecessors who, in the country’s interest, when it was necessary had dipped into the reserve funds and done their duty, as I did mine. So once again you alter the truth, M. de Beaurepaire, when you say in regard to the reserve funds that “Since 1872 the ministers had made it their duty to add to them, and never to withdraw from them.” In order to confound you, it is enough that I produce since 1872 the status of these reserve funds, which incidentally were called until 1875 “diverse funds” and from 1875-1886 “rolling funds,” which clearly indicates its nature and goal: March 7, 1872 it was at 104, 304 fr.

de Beaurepaire, when you say in regard to the reserve funds that “Since 1872 the ministers had made it their duty to add to them, and never to withdraw from them.” In order to confound you, it is enough that I produce since 1872 the status of these reserve funds, which incidentally were called until 1875 “diverse funds” and from 1875-1886 “rolling funds,” which clearly indicates its nature and goal: March 7, 1872 it was at 104, 304 fr. 78 cent. February 1, 1873 it was at 177,561 fr. 22 cent. January 9, 1874 it was at 120, 424 fr. 68 cent. December 18, 1874 it was at 8,175 fr. 17. Cent. November 23, 1875 it was at 17, 942 fr. 24 cent. I will note that in 1874 and 1875 we were on the eve of serious events, and that my predecessor did his duty in taking almost the entire reserve fund, as I would have believed I was doing mine in taking almost the entire sum that constituted the fund during the events that preceded the Schnaebel� Affair, if I would have considered it useful. Starting in 1874 the so-called reserve fund increased quite rapidly: in November 1877 it was 227, 647 fr. 23 cent. But it continued to suffer many fluctuations, which suffices to prove how false your accusations are, M. de Beaurepaire! On March 13, 1876 it was at 108,280 fr 06. On August 13 of the same year it was only at 105,273 fr 56. From 1877-1879 it was further reduced rather than augmented. September 1, 1877 it was at 228,607 fr 66. January 13, 1879 there were only 215,605 fr 30. I don’t want to recall an even more recent fact, but I must, since I have to defend myself. One of my predecessors, General Billot, one of my judges of today, had expenses in excess of his allocation to the amount of 8,046 fr 12. I have the proof in hand, as I do those for all the figures I just gave. I only cited the dates on which an official accounting of the reserve funds was made. Is this clear? If you had carried out a serious investigation, you shouldn’t, you can’t have not known theses figures and dates any less than I do, Monsieur de Beaurepaire! From 1885 to 1887 Let’s us go on now to my ministry. When I entered rue Saint-Dominique the reserve fund was at 2,038,255 fr. 14. Of this figure there should be subtracted, pertaining to the year 1885, 58,880 fr. used as a bonus for those employees who earn less than 3,600 fr. , a bonus they had always received and which that year the budget allocations hadn’t permitted to be given them in entirety. I have always thought that the duty of a minister was to defend the interests the least of his employees and to prevent them from suffering from the budgetary whims of parliament. Which is what I did at the time, and which I’d do again if I were minister. The reserve fund was thus at 1,979, 575 fr 14 c. The intelligence service, on top of its usual allocation, absorbed 80,000 fr. All the patriots who recall the incidents that preceded or accompanied the Schnaebel� Affair, all the officers who worked with me and who know what we did at the time, will find that it is a small sum. And if I didn’t spend more it is because at the time I encountered much disinterested devotion. So , Monsieur Procurator, you have forgotten that we were never closer to war? You have forgotten the calling up of a portion of the German army reserves? I am certain that my former colleagues at the ministry haven’t forgotten the memory of our patriotic fears of the time. You say that the reserve fund “was to have been used for the unforeseen needs of defense.” Well then; was there ever an hour when we had more urgently to think of “the needs of defense.” I appeal on this matter to all the French. As for me, I would have spent the left sou of the reserve fund if it had been necessary and acting any other way I would have thought I was committing a crime of insulting the fatherland. You claim that at the time, on the contrary, my intelligence service was neglected. How did you carry out your investigation, Monsieur Procurator General? You no longer remember the German press articles that every day denounced the expansion of our espionage system? If I only listened to my interest I would quote you a hundred different facts that would confound you, but which my patriotism obliges me to remain silent about.

If I only listened to my interest I would quote you a hundred different facts that would confound you, but which my patriotism obliges me to remain silent about. Nevertheless, there is one that I must speak of, despite its seriousness, because it suffices to prove that my collaborators and I did our duty, and the country will make fall upon you and all the wretches you serve the guilt for this revelation you oblige me to make. A Military Attach�’s Papers The military attach� of a great power had organized, with superior skill, a vast system of espionage, against which we were powerless. We managed, after much trouble, to learn where he hid his papers; one night, we snatched them. Yes, Monsieur Procurator General, for a whole night we had in our hands the list of spies, a copy of the reports addressed by the attach� to his government. We were able to copy everything in one night. And the next day when he awoke, that officer found all his documents back in their place. Even after he’d been transferred, he never knew how we were able to obtain certain revelations. However much it might have cost, find one Frenchman who would dare to say that it cost too much. And what man with common sense wouldn’t understand that to carry out such operations much money is needed? At the end of this affair I had voted a law on espionage. It’s not my fault if it wasn’t more strictly applied, and I can assure you it would have been if I had remained in charge longer. You dare to say, M. de Beaurepaire, that my intelligence service was neglected! Question my colleagues in Foreign Affairs, Messieurs de Freycinet and Flourens, and they will tell you how many times I provided them with precious information even on affairs they were in charge of! The Witness Geissen Is it by chance that the section of your act of accusation saying that “my intelligence service was neglected” had not been written while you attempted to have entered in your brief depositions like that of Geissen? You couldn’t do it, and I will tell you why. It is because my friends published two depositions of Colonel Vincent, one before the minister of War, the other before the commission of the High court, in which this brave soldier indignantly denies the statements of M. Geissen, one of those shady agents who are used by intelligence services because the services know the double game they know how to play. You yourself felt that the accusation against me, of having taken 100,000 francs from the intelligence service, would fall back on you when the head of the service would to tell you: You lie. The Reconstituted Reserve Fund Finally, in 1887, when the danger of an immediate conflict had passed, continuing the tradition of my predecessors, who spent when they needed to and saved when it was possible, I gave orders that we economize on the secret funds so that we could replace in the reserve fund the sums we had been forced to take from it. The written proof of this order must certainly be found at the ministry of war. You continue to alter the truth: you affirm that I took 279,000 francs from the reserve fund. But you know that this is false. I just explained to you what I did not with 79,000 francs, but with 80,000. There remain 200,000 francs. In his deposition my successor, General Ferron, declares that of these 20,000 francs 140,000 were loaned to the Military Circle, and 1500 were given to a Swedish officer. There thus remain 58,500 francs that my successor affirms that he found in the fund in cash, and counted himself. Is this sufficiently precise? The Military Circle According to you, the 140,000 francs given to the Military Circle were given with the aim of personal propaganda. Ask then the officers what they think of the usefulness of the Military Circle; ask this as well of M. de Freycinet., who will continue what I began by doing what I wanted to do: by giving his authorization to a vast cooperative association, the necessary corollary to the Military Circle. I had sent a bursar to study this organization in England, where it functions admirably well at the Army and Navy Club, and my work was so evil that the current minister found nothing better to do than to continue it. A commission is at this moment completing the preliminary work and the government itself counts heavily on this work to recover some of its popularity in the army. These 40,000 francs, incidentally, were only a loan, and at a given moment were to be returned to the reserve fund. They were provided in order to allow the Circle to give its landlord a year’s rent in advance. Since then this advance was reduced to six months and the 70,000 francs returned to the Circle’s funds should have returned to the Ministry of War. Perhaps they were; I know nothing about it. In order to follow your argumentation, Monsieur Procurator General, since you willfully confuse at every instant the secret funds and the reserve fund I am forced to pass from the one to the other. Misappropriations! You say: “On the eve of his departure, no longer minister, he took 30,000 francs and misappropriated them.” This time it is a matter of secret funds. It is true that on the eve of my departure the quartermaster Reichart gave me a sum of 30,000 francs while giving me his accounts; this sum was what remained of the monthly secret funds. You say that I misappropriated it? Here is the receipt that establishes what I did with it: Received from General Boulanger the sum of 32,000 francs for the various missions I fulfilled on behalf of the ministry of War in Germany and Belgium. Paris, May 31,1887 Al.

Paris, May 31,1887 Al. de Mondion The person who signed it had been my agent; he had rendered great service and it is my duty to remain silent, unless you force me to speak of them. I owed him this sum, France owed it to him, and I paid it. We will note that it exceeds by 2,000 francs that which was given me by M. Reichert. In any other circumstances I would have said to my successor: “I owe 32,000 francs from the secret fund; there only remain 30,000 francs; please pay the 2,000 that are missing from your next monthly payment.” But my relations with General Ferron were such that I preferred to take 2,000 francs from my pocket and say nothing. I think, Monsieur Procurator General, that I have established my accounts in a sufficiently precise fashion. I hope that your friend, your accomplice, M. Constans, will be able to give as exact an account of these secret funds. You then reproach me for having given 60,000 francs to a notary, for having paid my father’s debts. But if I hadn’t done this, how would you treat a man who had been for nearly two years commander -in-chief in Tunisia, 18 months minister and who consequently, for almost four years, had occupied the best paid positions in the army, but cared so little for the honor of his name as to neglect his father’s debts! It is false that I gave 6,000 francs to an agent. Give me the name of that agent so that I can refute him! It is also false that I furnished two apartments in town. Where are these apartments that I don’t know of? Who did I give the order to to furnish them? “L’Avenir National” I now arrive at what you call the “Avenir National Affair.” Yes, I gave a large sum from the secret fund to the newspaper “L’Avenir National” with a determined and absolutely patriotic goal. I completely accept responsibility and I am proud of it. Only a few of my collaborators know what I wanted to do, and I am certain they never told you. In order to fill out my intelligence service, made every day more difficult by the precautions taken by foreign governments, I wanted to have at my disposal an organ which – under the cover of foreign correspondents – would assist me in having agents and the means to communicate with them. I above all wanted – and you force me to make serious revelations – to have on hand people having with the socialists of a certain country relations which I counted on using the day war would be on the eve of breaking out, but only on this day. It was for this reason that I wanted to have on the newspaper men who had participated in socialist movements. For such a task not only a devoted newspaper was needed, but also a newspaper which in a way was the property of the ministry of War; a newspaper whose collaborators we could act and write without their even knowing the goal towards which they were headed. I will say no more, and the infamy of your proceedings was necessary to force me to make such revelations. The proof that I never wanted, as you say, make a commercial operation of this is that the day I realized that the newspaper couldn’t render us the services we expected of it I ceased to give it money. Finally, you say that “I freed up 10,000 francs in registered titles.” Is it the debts of the Military circle which I underwrote that you are speaking of? In that case, I am going to teach you what you are unaware of: Along with a certain number of my comrades, I underwrote 10,000 francs in debt for the Military Circle when it was founded. When the Circle borrowed money from the Credit Foncier the lenders were all reimbursed, myself as well as the others. I then returned the 10,000 francs with a letter that you will find in the Circle’s archives in which I said that I made a gift of this sum to an enterprise I considered necessary to the army. I wanted, figure by figure, to convict you of falsehood, and yet there is a quite obvious proof that I could never commit misappropriation, a proof that would dispense me from countering the others, and that’s that with the exception of this sum of 30,000 francs, given to your agent M. Mondion, not a single cent of either the reserve or secret funds ever passed though my hands. The deposition of General Yung, my chief of Cabinet, and all the officers who were part of the general staff are, I am sure, unanimous on this point. M. Gr�vy’s Audit Report You claim that contrary to usage I refused to give an accounting of my secret funds to the president of the Republic. This is false. In the first place, in keeping with the rules, I gave an accounting on December 31, 1886. (Which incidentally, as all the ministers know, is a simple formality.) And if I didn’t look for M. Gr�vy when I left the ministry to give him my accounts for January to May 1887, i.e., my accounts for only four months, it’s because the heads of service of the ministry, the sub-director d’Estourvelles and M. des Assis, accountant, told me that this was contrary to all usages. They added that these kinds of audit reports are only done once a year, at the end of every term; that they had seen the case present itself many times, given the many ministerial changes, and that my successor would receive the audit certification on December 31, 1887. What is more, while I was in Clermont-Ferrand my friend M. Laisant (one would say that he had guessed at that time what was going to happen today) wrote to M. Ferron to ask him if it wouldn’t be appropriate, given certain attacks, that I go to Mont-sous-Vaudrey where President Gr�vy could be found, to give him an accounting of the funds I had had at my disposal during the first four months of 1887. General Ferron responded that there was no reason for this.

General Ferron responded that there was no reason for this. What is left of your indictment, Monsieur Procurator General? The proof that you odiously and knowingly slandered me. But there is in your brief something even more infamous than your calumnies. You say: “These misappropriations are only brought up here for information purposes, for they are under the jurisdiction of another court.” You want to mislead public opinion, make people believe that I was a swindler, hoping that I wouldn’t have the time to defend myself. You prepared everything for a coup de th�atre. Thanks to the chance event that allowed us to have your dossier, you have been unmasked. THE COUP As for the COUP, the conspiracy that you claim to have established, the common sense of the public has already reached a verdict on this. I will nevertheless respond briefly to a few of your accusations. According to you I began to plot as soon as I left the ministry. In fact, at that time I every day saw a certain number of politicians. Almost every evening I could be found in the offices of La Justice” and “La Lanterne.” Was it with Messieurs Cl�menceau, Pichon, Millerand, and Mayer that I then plotted the overthrow of the republic? If so, why are they too not brought before the High Court? I challenge you, Monsieur Procurator General, to prove with a single honorable testimony that I in any way provoked the demonstrations that occurred after I left the ministry. And as concerns my departure for Clermont-Ferrand, you simply reproduce the unreliable deposition of your secret agent Alibert. But clumsy as you are, if I had wanted to do what you say, I would only have had to allow myself to be carried along by the crowd and I wouldn’t have left on that locomotive that your friends so often condemn me for. Here now is an imbecilic lie, for it is too easy for me to prove the truth: July 14, 1887 You say that on July 14, 1887 I was hidden in Paris, waiting for events to unfold. On July 14 I was in my bed, sick in Clermont-Ferrand. If you had wanted to do something other than slander me, you would have interrogated my general staff chief who, for the needs of the service, that day entered my room on several occasions, as well as the principal doctor, the director of the health service of my army corps, who twice came to see me to take care of me, the morning and the evening of July 14. Unmasked Slanders You say that I was in Prangins? I challenge you to prove that absurdity with even one witness. There is not one word of truth in your tale of my supposed telegraphic correspondence. Do you know by whom or in whose name were addressed certain dispatches you speak of ,and whose meaning you travesty? By the editor of “La Lanterne!” As for the famous historic night, where I responded only with a disdainful silence to the both childish and revolutionary projects of certain politicians who have today become my adversaries, public opinion has for a long time been fixed concerning your inept accusations. Finally, you attribute to me an unbelievable role in the events preceding December 2, 1887. I did nothing but listen to the conversations of men who were my former colleagues and who, incidentally, have since then for the most part formed the Floquet cabinet. In any case you have interrogated them, and you know what they answered you. M. Lockroy notably said to you: “If that day we attempted to a coup, I demand to be prosecuted, for I was part of it.” Why did you not prosecute him? You insinuate that I conspired with the Right, but at the time the Right was M. Ferry’s ally, and from hostility towards me voted in congress for General Saussier. Where Does the Money Come From? You then ask where did the money come from with which the national party fought against your masters, and you naively answer for me. You state that in less than one year I received 1,275 registered letters. Recruitments! You say that I wanted to recruit the head of Security! M. Goron’s deposition figures in the dossier and establishes precisely the contrary. You say that in the month of January I bragged of opening the World’s Fair in May. You know full well that I never pronounced these words, that they were spoken in the corridors of the Chamber by M. Thi�baud alone. You accuse me of having wanted to recruit soldiers and officers. I challenge you to find a single officer or soldier who would dare to say on his word of honor that I attempted to recruit him. The truth is that you have found nothing against me, and that you can find nothing, because there was nothing. General Saussier testifies to this himself in his deposition. Your judicial document is a tissue of clumsy slanders and cynical lies. In producing it you used nothing but the purchased testimony of an agent of the secret police and a swindler, or inept rumors taken from the books of M. Jospeh Reinach, son-in-law and nephew of Baron Kohn de Reinach, who I refused to go along with. The Lebel Rifle There is something in you brief that is even lower still.

The Lebel Rifle There is something in you brief that is even lower still. There remains a question that you haven’t dared approach, an ill-defined accusation that you haven’t dared put in your indictment, but that I will address because I find it implicitly contained in the portion of the High Court dossier that I have before me. In the month of October 1886 I sent to the United States a mission composed of three artillery officers in order to purchase the equipment that I was unable to find in either France or in neighboring countries in order to hasten the manufacture of the new rifle, the Lebel rifle. I don’t need to add just how urgent it was to hasten this manufacture. After long discussions with Colonel Gras, director of the manufactory of arms, despairing of finding the necessary equipment in Europe – for the French and foreign houses demanded a year in order to procure them – I remembered that in 1881, charged by the French government with a mission to the United States, I had visited gigantic factories having immense material on hand ready to produce as soon as the order was received a formidable reserve of weapons. I decided to send men to buy several million francs worth of these machines. The operation was a complete success and it’s thanks to it that we were able to be a year ahead of the other European nations in the fabrication of a rifle of small caliber. And so you brought before the Commission of the Nine Colonel Gras, General Nimes, who was then director of artillery, General Mathieu, today director of the same service. Before my eyes I have all of their depositions. Monsieur Merlin, your aide, closely interrogated them on all the details of this affair. In these interrogations he didn’t dare raise a single precise accusation against me. But I take from this your unhealthy intention of trying to have it believed that in accomplishing this act of patriotism I received a commission from the American manufacturers. You would have like to remove from your dossier all these depositions that prove the infamy of your work and the repugnant motives you obey. You didn’t dare commit this illegality, but you also didn’t dare put this accusation on your indictment. Well then, I take it up and I say: “What mucj are you made of, you and yours, for you to imagine that behind everything there is dishonesty; for you to think that a man with the responsibility for national defense couldn’t carry out an act useful to the fatherland without having in his head some idea of filthy lucre?” The Territorial Reserve Army Why did you not also accuse me of having myself paid commissions on the equipment of the Territorial Reserve Army? Why do you not dare tell the country, revealing the secret of our military forces: “ If this minister one day, without Germany being aware of it (it only knew it, in fact, thanks to your revelations), if this patriotic minister prepared and made possible the mobilization of several hundred of thousands of soldiers, it’s only because he needed money for his pleasures.” The Justice of the People My adversaries, who call themselves my judges, will condemn me tomorrow. But you and your masters have already been judged and condemned by the honest people, who are the immense majority of your fatherland. It is in vain that we will seek in the past of our French magistracy, which has the most noble history in the world, a magistrate having carried out a task like yours. The response I give to your calumnies, as I said at the beginning, and I repeat it again, is that it’s not to my so-called judges that I address myself; it’s to all my fellow citizens, to all honest and patriotic Frenchmen, for I only care about their verdict. And they will soon render their verdict, when their ballots will condemn you, the judges you gave me, and your masters who had you carry out your evil task! For you perhaps don’t know it, ill-informed magistrate, but the greatest complaint some of my at times too ardent friends have against me is my absolute respect for legality, consecrated by the people’s suffrage. Yes I, who you accuse of a coup, I feel that the ballot is the sole arm that it is now permitted to employ, and if universal suffrage so often had faith in me, it’s because it knows what confidence I have in it. It is to it that I appeal against your calumnies, which I refuted, and for the parody of justice that will take place. I appeal against the iniquity of the parliamentarians to the justice of the people. London, August 5, 1889 General Boulanger The Boulangist Movement Archive

The Boulangist Movement 1888 The Boulanger Balance Sheet First published: 1888; Translated: from the original broadsheet by Mitchell Abidor. To Republican Voters Publication of the Society of the Rights of man and the Citizen M. Lissagaray, General Secretary, 1888 Declaration Belonging to diverse fractions of the great republican family, we believe that an accord among all those who have remained faithful to the republic is necessary in order to put an end to the Boulangist adventure, so humiliating for our country. The accord will last as long as the peril. To the leap into the void they want to drag France into, we oppose the normal development of the republic. We support the policy of revisionism, but we want the sincere application of this policy, and not the exploitation of it by a general who poses as a pretender and recruits his followers from all those parties. Sons of the French Revolution, admirers not of a single period of this Revolution, but of that whole forward march of a free people, one that posed all problems and which would have solved them if it hadn’t been halted, we are determined to use all means in order to prevent Caesarite reaction from taking our country backwards for the third time. Revision is necessary: republican revision and not the Bonapartist revision called for as an expedient by the initiators of the new plebiscite so as to arrive at the installation of personal power. But revision alone cannot suffice. We must take up the national movement of the French Revolution and become its continuators. We must safeguard individual and public freedoms, the freedoms of propaganda, of the press, of gathering, of association, guaranteed by the republican form. We must pursue the integral development of the Republic, that is the progressive realization of all the constitutional, political, and social reforms it contains. Against the attempts at dictatorship that threaten us, we must oppose the demand the Rights of Man and the Citizen, proclaimed by the Revolution. This is our goal. We will find the instrument for reaching it in our republican traditions, in the rebirth of the great political associations which, in bringing together all the democratic forces of Paris and the departments, were the stimulant for the assemblies of the Revolution. We are founding the Society of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. It has as its object the defense of the republic, for the struggle without mercy against any dictatorial undertaking on the part of reaction. The action Committee, elected at the constitutive assembly of May 23 [there follow the names, include those of Lissagaray and Georges Clemenceau]. Introduction What constitutes the fleeting strength of what is called the Boulangist party, and which in reality is nothing but a coalition of raving malcontents and the hypocritical ambitious, is that the voter to whom the new sect addresses itself doesn’t have before its eyes all the evidence before it in the movement’s trial of the republic. In its newspaper articles, as in the speeches of its advocates, the plebiscitary faction it gathers together everything that can harm the regularly constituted public powers but it willfully omits anything that could serve to defend them. If bad faith was banished from the rest of the world, it would find asylum in the heart of the Caesarite conspirators. In these conditions it seemed necessary to us to reproduce all the documents attesting to the unanimous reprobation that General Boulanger and his friends have received from all sides, at all ranks and all levels of the republican party. All the documents we will reproduce are in one way or another official, either emanating from different groups in the Chamber of Deputies, or extracted them from the transcripts in extenso of parliamentary sessions, or they were written by regular associations, or finally, they are borrowed from the authentic and signed correspondence of General Boulanger himself. We intentionally leave out everything that could be contested, like the interviews by journalists of the deputy from the Nord or his friends, as well as the speeches, obviously incorrect but without any appreciable authority, of a few of his friends. It will suffice for us to show that the prot�g� of the Bonapartists and royalists was from the first moment publicly unmasked and condemned by all faithful servants, by all the disinterested partisans of the republic. The Groups of the Chamber In the first place, at the moment when General Boulanger allowed his candidacy to be proposed in the Dordogne and the Aisne, the extreme left published the following manifesto: The undersigned deputies, members of the extreme left, protest against the electoral demonstration proposed on the name of General Boulanger. Dedicated to two ideas: remaking the fatherland and basing the republic on democratic reforms; Determined to continue without faltering the struggles against the resistances that stir spirits and irritate opinion; We urge voters to correct their work; we demand precise mandates, more resolute men. We conform in this way to the fundamental principle of the republic: obedience to the will of the nation, ensured by its delegates. Votes cast for a general who refuses to put down his sword would constitute a veritable plebiscite. And like all republicans of all times, we detest plebiscites: it is the abdication of a free people. The Revolution founded our freedoms and saved our territory by obliging the most glorious soldiers, the day after immortal victories, to bow before the law. In those days, generals held their tongues. The intrusion of military chiefs in politics is not only a menace to the institutions of a free country, but it also disarms our forces in the face of the foreigner by dividing them. It has always had the suppression of our rights as its result, and defeat as punishment. Consequently, we call on all good citizens to refuse, in the name of the traditions and principles of democracy, in the interests of the republic and the fatherland, to refuse to participate in a dangerous demonstration. A great number of independent deputies also adhered to this manifesto.

A great number of independent deputies also adhered to this manifesto. In turn, the socialist group in the Chamber took position in these terms: Declaration The undersigned deputies, members of the socialist group, declare that they find it profoundly regrettable that the noise around the name of a soldier should come and increase the divisions in the republican party. Convinced that the triumph of a man would be the retreat of the socialist idea, they protest against any plebiscitary maneuver from whatever side it might come, and affirm that a reformist government alone can put an end to this agitation. In addition, a great number of deputies belonging to all groups publicly declared that, without believing that it is necessary to attest to their sentiments by the publication of a special document, they completely shared their colleague’s way of seeing. And finally, the deputies of the Seine, without distinction as to tendency, understood that they had to affirm the opinion of the representatives of the capital, and they signed the following proclamation: In the presence of the plebiscitary tentative boldly made in the name of General Boulanger, the deputies of the Seine cannot remain silent. It is their duty to honestly and publicly express the way they think. Not a single patriot has the right to remain neutral in political struggles. This is why the undersigned, republican representatives from Paris and the department of the Seine, firm defenders of public liberties, declare that they are determined to combat all Caesarite whims, whoever’s name they might serve. What we want is the maintenance of the republic. which alone will make enter into laws, institutions, and morals the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, that great democratic charter of the French Revolution, which admits neither savior, protector, not dictator. [29 deputies] signed, and [four] refused to sign, two of whom belong as we know to the Boulangist Committee. At the Municipal Council of Paris At the session of April 23, the Municipal Council of Paris voted the following order of the day by a majority of 57 to three of sixty voting: The Municipal Council energetically condemns the plebiscitary and Boulangist campaign and passes to the order of the day. The Parti Ouvrier The representatives of the Federation of Socialist Workers of France, the members of the Parti Ouvirer, published an eloquent appeal, whose tenor is demonstrated by the following extract: M. Boulanger mimics Bonaparte. But when Bonaparte did his 18 Brumaire his epaulettes had at least been blackened in successful combats for the fatherland. M. Boulanger for his part won his epaulettes and Cross exercising his bravery and military talents against the wounded in a hospital and against the imprisoned defeated. The republic has liberty as its foundation. All power belongs to the people; every law must express its will The constitution of the army, on the contrary, rests on absolute authority. How than can a general aspire to the leadership of republican policy with there being no danger? Like Hoche, if he was republican, M. Boulanger would leave to time, intelligence, and the consciousness, and the energy of citizens the solid founding of the republic on free and egalitarian institutions. Like Hoche, if he was an honest and brave soldier, he would never compromise the security and the integrality of our country by spreading division in the face of external dangers. Journalists and representatives of the people can abdicate their fragile republican convictions. They can, with no shame, soil their pages, tear up their mandates and prepare a military dictatorship. We workers, we the representatives of the Parti Ouvrier, are ready, with our party, to forget for the moment the sixteen years during which the bourgeoisie betrayed the interests of the people. We are ready to defend and preserve, by any means, the fragile seed of our republican institutions against any saber that threatens it. Long live the social republic! The Young people of the Schools It is the eternal honor of our country that among us freedom has always found among its defenders, alongside the humblest and poorest citizens, in the studious and educated young people of our great schools and universities. In 1888, as in 1830 and 1851, young people have done their duty and fraternally tied themselves to the robust manual workers of the city to combat reaction and Caesarism. On April 22 the Parisian newspapers published the following two protests: First protest Certain Boulangist newspapers insinuate in this morning’s issue that the anti-Boulangist demonstration that set out from the Latin Quarter yesterday was organized by the Catholic school and that the young people who participated were all supporters of the priesthood. The republican youth of the schools, who all took part in the demonstration, protest with energy and indignation against such allegations. The watchword of the movement came not from the Catholic faculties, but from the state schools, and the vast majority of the demonstrators were republican students whose goal was to protest against the dictatorial and plebiscitary ideas that for some time have invaded the country, and particularly against the man who is their champion. Vive la France! Vive la R�publique! Second Protest The republican youth of the schools, who all took part in yesterday evening’s anti-Boulangist demonstration, strongly protest against the allegations of the “Lanterne” and the “Intransigeant,” which lead people to believe that yesterday’s demonstration was the work of the Catholic faculties. Vive la France! Vive la R�publique! These two protests are followed by more than three hundred signatures of students from the schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, Mines, Letters, and Sciences, etc..

These two protests are followed by more than three hundred signatures of students from the schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, Mines, Letters, and Sciences, etc.. In order to respond to the brutality of the Boulangist demonstrators, and to be ready for any eventuality, the students soon afterwards named an organization committee, and they quickly received the congratulations and formal membership requests from the students of the �cole normale sup�rieure and their comrades from the faculties of Toulouse, Nancy, Lyon, Aix, Lille, Bordeaux, Rennes, Algiers, etc. Anatole de la Forge’s Challenge Nevertheless, proud of the electoral successes they had surprisingly had in two departments to the benefit of their leader, the Boulangists thought that Paris, too, would give them a majority if it was consulted. Informed of this fanfaronade, Citizen Anatole de la Forge, deputy from the Seine and vice-president of the Chamber, immediately sent the following letter to the editor of the “Intransigeant”: Paris, April 25, 1888 My Dear Rochefort: You challenge the deputies of the Seine to present themselves before the voters so tat the latter can choose between the policy of their representatives and that of general Boulanger. I accept your challenge on the following conditions: General Boulanger himself will be the candidate against me. He will come himself to public meetings to make known and develop his programs in opposition to mine. General Boulanger will commit to clearly respond to all questions of a political, economic and social order that will be addressed to he and I throughout the length of the electoral period Finally, as you committed the “Intransigeant” this morning, you and your political friends will pay the electoral costs which my modest financial position doesn’t allow me to meet. Under these conditions I am ready to submit my resignation as deputy from the Seine and to appeal to the decisions of our greatest judge, universal suffrage. Yours, Anatole de la Forge The Boulangists responded with a pitiful silence to this forthright blow delivered by one of the most respected and popular members of the republican party. It seems that having plenty of anonymous and suspect money for inundating the provinces with grotesque images and songs, they don’t feel themselves to be sufficiently wealthy to win Paris’ heart. The League of Patriots M. Paul D�roul�de having wanted to turn the League of Patriots over to General Boulanger as a completely organized electoral force, but which had only been founded to prepare the new generations for the great moral and physical efforts of the struggles to come, an important split immediately occurred in the leadership committee. All the sincere republicans and all the independents withdrew from the league to found, with the unanimous support of the Alsacians and Lorrainers who were members, a new group called the Patriotic Union of France. Their initiative was saluted in the country by a long acclamation, which was joined in with by the local committees in Paris and the provinces. The League of Patriots, killed by Boulangism, is now replaced by the Patriotic Union, which will never have anything in common with it. Oratorical Demonstrations Among all the speeches pronounced over the last three months by a number of important politicians, and who all condemned the plebiscitary enterprise, we will only point out two, due to lack of space. First, that of M. Henri Brisson in Lyon: “Outside of parliament the Right sends all of its troops to the assistance of General Boulanger’s enterprise. How, in the Chambers, can we count on doing with it anything at all that is useful to the republic? (Applause) “An alliance at once both noble and fertile is that which was recently sealed in a Parisian hall between the workers and the young. This is what we should aim for. “A courageous republican, my old friend Floquet, has just assumed a great task. We have nothing else to do but assist him, we republicans, in his efforts to give the spirit of progress all possible satisfaction and to combat the dictatorship.” (“Very Good!” Applause) M. Brisson then took hold of the speech given by General Boulanger at the Caf� Riche to show that the idea that animates him is indeed the plebiscitary idea. (“Yes, Yes!” Applause) “The general wrote somewhere, ‘France will not perish in my hands.’ This phrase has never been denied. On the contrary, one of the plebiscitary newspapers published it with praise. “We well know this language. We know what catastrophes it bears in its womb. Let us give France to no one!” (Bravos and prolonged applause. And now the beautiful peroration of the speech of M. Floquet in Laon: “What should we fear? The republic has for it the nation, the law. It is strong enough not only to protect its existence, but its development, the peaceful and legal development of long-awaited reforms against the coalition of the agitated. (Prolonged applause) “Look over at the army, one of whose most justly honored chiefs I salute at my side, and around whom I see so many distinguished officers, and take an example from them. It believes, and it is correct, that it sufficiently demonstrates its patriotism by working silently and with perseverance at making itself capable and worthy of defending the country if it were attacked. It is content to shrug its shoulders when publishing house speculators in odious brochures dangle before its eyes the role of the praetorians of the decadence. Faithful to the laws, having never allowed indiscipline to penetrate or remain in its severe ranks (Repeated Bravos), it is ready to support public freedom against any adventurer, in the way that it is to defend the national soil against any invader. We can have confidence in the republic.” (Repeated salvoes of applause). The Freemasons Following a number of isolated demonstrations by the lodges of Paris and the departments, among which the most important was that of the Great Symbolic Scottish Lodge, a Masonic conference was held on June 3 at the Cirque d’Hiver. After a violent discussion raised by a few Boulangists, the following order of the day was voted by an immense majority (five hands alone were raised for the nays.) The Freemasons of the Orient of Paris gathered in congress in Paris at the Cirque d’Hiver June 3, 1888): Considering that Freemasonry cannot, without failing its democratic traditions, remain indifferent before the plebiscitary and Caesarite agitation in the name of one man;

After a violent discussion raised by a few Boulangists, the following order of the day was voted by an immense majority (five hands alone were raised for the nays.) The Freemasons of the Orient of Paris gathered in congress in Paris at the Cirque d’Hiver June 3, 1888): Considering that Freemasonry cannot, without failing its democratic traditions, remain indifferent before the plebiscitary and Caesarite agitation in the name of one man; We cast a cry of alarm and appeal to all the Masons of France to protest against Boulangist propaganda and to defend Liberty and the republic against its attacks. Previously, the Grand Council of the Order of the Grand-Orient of France, having been told by some Boulangist Freemasons, in conformity with the letter of Masonic rules, that they disapproved the anti-plebiscitary and anti-Caesarite orders of the day voted by the near unanimity of the lodges of Paris and the departments, had convoked an extraordinary session of all the members of Paris and the provinces. The discussion was very thorough: every delegate gave an account of the political state of his department, and every one of them remarked that the Boulangist party only had any strength at all thanks to the open support of the reactionaries. Following this discussion, an order of the day was voted by 17 votes against 5. Here is the text. The Council of the Order: Reminding Masons that in their acts as citizens they should always be inspired by the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, that have been and are the strength of our institution, and to remain the faithful and energetic defenders of the republic and the resolute adversaries of the plebiscitary and Casearite policies that now threaten true democracy, expressly recommends to Masons, in conformity with article 15 of the Constitution, to avoid debates in purely Masonic meetings that might raise political questions, and particularly the questions of persons. The Association of the Rights of Man and the Citizen A practical conclusion was required for these diverse manifestations of republican indignation provoked by the beginnings of Boulangism; this was understood on all sides. First, republican youth organized itself in the Ligue Antipl�biscitaire, which all the republicans of the press and parliament quickly joined. Another society was soon founded, amidst great enthusiasm, among the most diverse currents and previously most divided currents of public opinion. At the appeal of Messrs Cl�menceau, Joffrin ,and Ranc, The Society of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was organized. The Boulangist Movement Archive

V. A. Lektorsky The Dialectic of Subject and Object and some Problems of the Methodology of Science The philosophy of pre-Marxist materialism evolved a definite understanding of the cognitive process, an understanding which was accepted by the natural sciences and prevailed in the minds of scientists virtually right up to the 20th century. This notion assigns to the cognising subject, the knower, the role of more or less passive receiver of objective information from without. The cognitive process is thus related to a real person and treated as a product of the activity of a material formation, the brain (the philosophical conception being a materialist one). However, the fact that the cognising subject is involved in the structure of reality was not fully realised and his activity in relation to the objects being cognised (particularly his experimental activity) was regarded as something that created only the external conditions for the process of cognition. This notion ran into trouble as science developed in the 20th century. The revolution which then occurred and is still occurring in various natural sciences, and which is expressed in the breakdown of their conceptual apparatus and revision of their basic propositions, has been accompanied by attempts to rethink the basic philosophical and methodological premises of scientific activity. Here we shall attempt to outline some of the basic problems of the methodology of modern science to the solution of which the understanding of the dialectic of subject and object evolved by Marxist philosophy is of particular importance. This problem has received increasing attention in recent Soviet philosophical literature. A fundamental feature of the Marxist approach to the analysis of cognition is recognition of the need to consider all forms of cognitive activity in the context of the real activity of social man, in the context of the practical transformation of natural and social reality. It is not in cognition but in practice, i.e., in actually doing something with objective reality, that Marxism sees the starting point of man's relationship with the world. Practice, as social man's changing of the natural and social environment, as the creation of new forms of life activity and hence changing the subject himself, is a specific feature of man and sharply distinguishes him from the animal. Man is not passive in the face of external nature, he treats it as the object of his activity, as something that should be changed in accordance with some aim of his own. In actual practice cognition of the object as it is "in itself", and goal-setting, the setting of the task of changing the object, are directly united. It is important to realise, however, that even when cognition does not directly involve material activity and emerges as a specialised form of production - science -its specific features can be correctly understood only if we realise that at all stages of its development cognition depends on activity involving objects, on object activity, on practice. Cognition and practice are not simply two different forms of human activity between which a mere external link may be established, although this is what they may seem on the surface of things. Practice is not only genetically the point of departure of various forms of human fife activity; it also essentially determines their functions at each given moment. And if the development of cognition leads to its external isolation from the activity of changing the world, this does not exclude the fact that in the deeper sense science at all stages develops as something dependent on human practice. Practice is the actual unity of the subject and the object of activity. Moreover, as Marx understood it, the problem of the relationship between the subject and object is not identical to the basic question of philosophy, i.e., the question of the relationship between consciousness and being, because the subject is not simply consciousness, it is a real and acting person, and in its turn the object is not simply objective reality, but that part of it which has become the target of the practical or cognitive activity of the subject. It is important to remember also that the subject of activity and cognition is not simply a separate, "corporeal" individual. A person becomes a subject, doer, knower, only to the extent that he has mastered the modes of activity evolved by society. At the same time even the singling out of the object from objective reality occurs through practical and cognitive activity Logical categories, language, the system of scientific knowledge, etc.) which have been evolved by society and reflect the properties of objective reality. Thus Marx's theory of knowledge is indissolubly linked with his understanding of the nature of man. So it is no accident that the Marxist "practical materialism", which understands man as a transformer of reality and points to the changing of social conditions by means of revolutionary activity, stands in opposition to the metaphysical, contemplative materialism not only in its social conclusions, but also in its understanding of the fundamental questions of the theory of knowledge. An object is exposed to the cognising subject from various ,,angles", in various aspects. But it is the task of scientific knowledge to reproduce the properties of the object "as it is", and not in its relationship to this or that "point of view" of the subject. The development of knowledge is, in fact, characterised by the tendency to become aware of reality as a "thing in itself", that is, as a single, systemic whole, to connect all the known "fragments" of reality (various systems of relationships) into a unified objective system presenting its various aspects and sides to the cognising subject. It is important to note that the realisation of the abovementioned tendency in scientific knowledge presupposes that the subject is aware of his place in the system of objective reality. This implies, above all, that the subject must be aware of his object characteristics as a part of the actual cognitive situation, that is to say, the subject must view himself as a natural body forming part of the general objective interconnection and interaction with other bodies and, on the other hand, investigate the results of his own objectified activity, the world of socially significant objects (instruments, tools, linguistic symbols, etc.). Thus it is a necessary condition of the objectivity of knowledge that we should be aware of the object characteristics that have, as it were, "grown together" with the subject either because they are immediately connected with the subject's physical body or, as Marx put it, because they express his "inorganic body", i.e., the world of objects produced by the subject.

Thus it is a necessary condition of the objectivity of knowledge that we should be aware of the object characteristics that have, as it were, "grown together" with the subject either because they are immediately connected with the subject's physical body or, as Marx put it, because they express his "inorganic body", i.e., the world of objects produced by the subject. This means that objectivity of knowledge in the form in which it is established by science presupposes awareness of the part played by the subject's measuring operations, the instruments he uses, his frames of reference, his means of codifying knowledge in one or another system of reference (and the ability to distinguish the code from the content of knowledge). In other words, in developed knowledge (scientific knowledge at any rate) the subject is, as it were, divided; he places himself in a "third position" in relation to himself and the object and attributes this or that subjective "point of view" to a certain "projection" of the object on to the subject, this explanation being given within the framework of the objective system of relationships of reality as a single systemic whole, that is, a "thing in itself". Thus objective knowledge necessarily presupposes that the subject is aware of his place in the structure of reality because only then is it possible to unite the various aspects of the object (which appear to the subject as various "angles" on the object) and to detect the special features of the "thing in itself". However, the subject's understanding of his place in the objectively real situation depends on the degree of objectivity of knowledge, on how deeply it has penetrated into the object. We must emphasise yet another fundamental feature which characterises the Marxist conception of the subject-object dialectic and which strikes us as highly relevant to the problems of the methodology of modern science. The object of activity and cognition is to be understood as a historical phenomenon, that is, an object in which change is dependent on the development of social practice. It is the practice of the subject which singles out from activity, from objective reality, the object upon which practice is directed (this is why the object is not identical to objective reality because not every object of reality has the function of being an object of practice). The object is cognised in forms of practical activity and this refers even to those objects that man is not immediately concerned with changing. This is expressed in the fact, first, that an object may reveal a functional connection with the object of immediate transformation and therefore acquire a practical interest. Thus the firmament became the object of astronomical observation and cosmogonic study only after knowledge of the positions of the stars revealed their importance for navigation and so on. Secondly, the actual means of contemplation, immediate observation, seeing of reality, that is, the identification of its objective characteristics, background and so on, are mediated by the preceding (individual and social) experience of practical operation with the object. Changes in the form and character of practice change the object of practice and cognition. Having understood reflection as active reflection, having understood cognitive operations as practical actions that have undergone special change (this idea is being increasingly recognised both in the methodology of science and the modern psychology of thought - suffice it to mention the works of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget or the studies by such Soviet psychologists as L. Vygotsky and A. Leontyev and others) Marxist philosophy makes it possible, on the one hand, to show the active role of the subject in the ideal reproduction of the object, the part played in this process by ideal constructions, the devising of patterns, models, abstract objects, etc., and, on the other hand, to understand theory itself as a pattern of potential means of operating With the object. This is not to say that any theoretical operation may be interpreted as a possible form of practical activity because the majority of theoretical operations have no immediate practical significance (their objects-ideal, abstract, etc.-can be presented only in symbolic form). Theory provides possible means of practical activity to the extent to which the ideal operations used in creating it can be linked with direct practical operations, such as operations of experimentation and measurement, which are particularly important for the theories of natural science and endow theoretical concepts with concrete meaning. These practical operations are a special form of practice, a special way of testing and understanding theoretical scientific hypotheses. For modern works on the methodology of the natural sciences it is axiomatic that the evaluation of theoretical concepts presupposes the establishing of certain empirical dependencies by means of situations reproduced by practical experiment and also by the empirically established results of these situations (this was expressed, although in a distorted, subjectivistic form, by operationalism). It is a notable fact that this dialectic of subject and object, though characteristic of modern natural science, is not always given an adequate philosophical interpretation by scientists themselves and sometimes leads to subjectivist interpretations. The subjectivist interpretation of quantum mechanics that some prominent physicists defended in their day is well known. The prominent German physicist Max Born, opposing such interpretations, emphasised that science should reproduce objective reality existing independently of the consciousness. In Born's view, the key to the concept of reality not only in physics but in any sphere of knowledge is the concept of the invariant of the group of transformations. "Invariants are the concepts of which science speaks in the same way as ordinary language speaks of 'things', and which it provides with names as if they were ordinary things." [Physics in My Generation, 1956] Most measurements in physics, Born believed, are not directly concerned with the things but with some kind of projection. The part played by detection of the invariant characteristics of an object in building up objective knowledge is recognised today by many natural scientists. Jean Piaget, for instance, one of the most eminent psychologists of modern times, places the problem of forming invariants at the centre of his theoretical conception. Piaget sees the essence of intellect in the system of operations derived from objective action. Moreover, action becomes an operation only when it has a certain interconnection with other actions and is organised in a structural whole in which some operations are balanced by other reciprocal operations. The reciprocity of operations means that for every operation there is a symmetrical one that restores the initial position. It must be noted, however, that attempts to identify the structure of objective knowledge with the identification of invariant characteristics of the object run into serious philosophical difficulties and in Max Born's consideration of the "criterion of reality" the nature of these difficulties becomes particularly apparent. One has the impression that Born is inclined to identify the sum-total of invariants with the reality reproduced in knowledge, and in this connection regards "projections" as something unreal, existing only in relation to physics with its measuring instruments.

One has the impression that Born is inclined to identify the sum-total of invariants with the reality reproduced in knowledge, and in this connection regards "projections" as something unreal, existing only in relation to physics with its measuring instruments. But the point is that the instruments with which the physicist carries out his experiments act in this respect as quite real physical bodies interacting with other bodies according to objective laws, and so both the results of the interaction and the properties in general arising as a result of the relationship of one object to other objects-the so-called "projections"-must exist in objective reality. What is more, invariance is not an absolute characteristic of one or another property but is revealed only in a particular system of relationships, and what is invariant in one system may be non-invariant in another. On this basis the critics promptly pointed out the logical vulnerability of the "criterion of reality" proposed by Born. The physical picture of the world includes both invariant and non-invariant magnitudes. Both of them have real meaning and express definite aspects of an object. Virtually the same difficulties were encountered by the classical philosophical systems, such as Plato's and Kant's, which treated the criterion of invariance as an indicator of the objectivity of knowledge. Kantian philosophy places great emphasis on the subjective character of the sensations in contrast to the objective judgment of reason. In Plato's philosophy the same problem emerges in the form of the impossibility of clearly and logically defining the relationship of the world of constant and immutable ideas to the world of mutable "non-existence" and "becoming". All these difficulties are rooted in the metaphysical, dualistic opposition between immutable objective essences, realities, on the one hand, and the world of subjective variable experience, sensations, "projections" of the thing on the subject, on the other hand. The conclusion to be drawn from all this would appear to be not denial of the role of the criterion of invariance as an indicator of the objectivity of knowledge (the facts of cognition convince us of its validity), but rather the need to rethink the relationship of the invariant and stable to the non-invariant, the changeable, and also the relationship of the objective to the subjective, which leads to the paradoxes that cannot be solved from metaphysical and idealist positions. The point is that invariant characteristics themselves can be isolated only through variability, through movement, that the invariant necessarily envisages a difference which becomes, as it were, a manifestation of the invariant and a means of its realisation. Moreover, the development of knowledge is characterised by the fact that non-invariant characteristics are explained through the action of invariant characteristics, that is, general, necessary relationships, are included in the system of general necessary dependencies and have their own objective place in this system. It stands to reason that relationships that are invariant in one frame of reference may be non-invariant in another. At the same time, developed theoretical knowledge is characterised by a search for ways of passing from one system to another which offer the possibility of formulating universal laws. The discovery of a new system in which laws and relationships hitherto considered universal fail to operate stimulates a search for new invariants, etc. It must be stressed that the whole process is carried out on the basis of objective practical interaction between the subject and the object. The connection noted above between the identifying of invariant characteristics of an object and the objectivity of knowledge, and also the dialectic of the invariant and the non-invariant indicates the inadmissibility of an external, metaphysical dualist counterposing of the subjective and the objective. The subjective and the objective pass into one another; knowledge is subjective not "as it is", but only in relation to another, more accurate, more comprehensive system of knowledge. The development of knowledge is movement from the subjective to the objective, the constant overcoming of subjectivity, the "pouring" of the subjective into the objective (Lenin), the raising of the degree of objectivity of knowledge. Now we must consider the subjectivist interpretations of the role of objective activity in the theoretical reproduction of the object. We have already said that the practice of modern science lends increasing conviction to the thesis that evaluation of theoretical concepts presupposes the establishing of certain empirical dependencies between situations that can be reproduced by practical experiment, and also between the empirically established results of these situations. This does not mean, however, that the content of theoretical concepts can be reduced to the content of a series of measuring operations. In P. W. Bridgman's operationalism, however, the meaning of theoretical concepts is virtually identified with the content of measuring operations and it is emphasised that various concepts correspond to various sets of operations of this kind. From the standpoint of operationalism it is pointless in science to speak of objective reality independent of the operations of the experimenter. But the notion of knowledge as a form of purposeful activity by the subject does not override the fact that knowledge is simultaneously the reflection of the object, the ideal reproduction of the reality which exists independently of the consciousness. If we do not accept the facts that experimental and measuring operations by the subject are, like theoretical operations, determined as regards content by the object, we cannot understand the meaning of these operations themselves. Bridgman's attempt to define the theoretical concepts of physics in terms of experimental operations entailed the necessity of discovering criteria for generalising various operations (since all operations are bound to differ from one another). Such criteria could not be established operationally in terms of Bridgman's operationalism because he understands operations as something directly given, carrying its content in itself (in approximately the same sense as that of the doctrine of the logical positivists on immediate sense-data). Since any operation depends for its content on the object upon which it is directed, operations with the same external form may have quite different cognitive content.

Since any operation depends for its content on the object upon which it is directed, operations with the same external form may have quite different cognitive content. It is the structure of the actual object of cognition which makes us unite different experimental and theoretical operations as operations referring to one and the same object and characterising the meaning of one concept. Despite the formulas of the operationalists, modern science recognises the tremendous significance of theoretical concepts, which make it possible to pass from one set of measuring operations to another, and which reflect the properties of objective reality. Yet another problem which has increasingly claimed the attention of specialists in the methodology of science is that of the need to take into account the involvement of the scientific theoretical relationship to reality in the wider system of the various means of knowing the world employed by social man. The philosophy of logical positivism, which until recently dominated research on the methodology of science in Western Europe and the United States, proceeded from the fundamental opposition between the philosophical ("metaphysical") and the specialised scientific, cognitive and evaluative relationships to reality, ultimately treating theoretical research as a special means of describing the "immediately given" empirical facts. Today, however, Western writing on the "philosophy of science" gives priority to another school of thought, represented by the work of Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend and others. This school emphasises the necessary connection between the formulation and discussion of any scientific problem and the acceptance of a definite "paradigm" (Kuhn) or "research programme" (Lakatos), based on various philosophico-"metaphysical" assumptions. But if the connection of the latter with the acceptance of a certain system of value orientations is generally acknowledged, science-according to this way of studying it -cannot be accepted as it is, without taking into account its place in the wider system of culture (Kuhn emphasises close connection of the "paradigm" with the system of social and cultural institutions). And besides, in itself the scientific theoretical relationship to the world expresses a certain value orientation (Feyerabend particularly stresses this point). Finally, if a theoretical construction is not simply an "abridged description" of facts or outline of the transition from some facts to others, if the very description of the empirical data presupposes evaluation and interpretation through the prism of theoretical propositions, the gap between evaluatory statements and statements of facts turns out to be not very great. At any rate, according to these notions science not only as a social institution but also as a system of means of obtaining knowledge (i.e., analysed in its methodological aspect) would appear to be closely involved in the wider context of various human relationships to the world and cannot be fully understood without taking the latter into consideration. As Feyerabend emphasises (quoting Marx), it is necessary to take into account the essentially human character of science, its involvement in the system of activity. The most rigorous standards of research, he continues, are not imposed on science "from without", but are inseparably linked with the creative essence of the cognitive process. At the same time it must be noted that as a whole the representatives of this trend in the "philosophy of science" offer not so much acceptable solutions as an uncompromising statement of some of the questions involved in the philosophical-methodological study of science. But the approaches recommended by this school, the dependencies which they consider fundamental (historical analysis of knowledge, connection between philosophical and specialised scientific thought, unity of empirical description and theoretical interpretation, etc.), and which are regarded in contemporary British and American literature as a radically new orientation of the "philosophy of science" in a fundamentally different philosophical and scientific context, all these dependencies characterise the Marxist analysis of knowledge, admittedly (and this is of fundamental importance!) in an essentially different philosophical and scientific context. Awareness of the fact that scientific knowledge is involved in the system of social relationships, in the context of the various means by which social man comprehends the world, is one of the fundamental features of the Marxist tradition in the study of knowledge, and within the framework of this tradition substantial scientific results have been obtained. It is not debatable that science cannot exist without man. And when the logical positivists maintained that the task of the "philosophy of science" amounted to the analysis of the logical language of ready-made theoretical systems, they realised full well, of course, that theoretical systems and their language do not exist outside human activity. The whole point is how man, the subject, is included in the subject-matter of the methodology of science. In recent years Karl Popper has been propagating the idea of "epistemology without the subject". The essence of this conception is not so much the elimination of the subject from epistemological, methodological analysis (after all, recognition of a "cognitive subject" does not contradict the basis of this point of view), as the treatment of the content of logical and methodological norms as irrelevant to the subject's creative cognitive activity and imposed on him, as it were, from without. Marxist philosophy, while emphasising the objective character of scientific knowledge, its reflection of an objective reality existing independently of the subject, nevertheless maintains as a necessary condition for the acquisition of genuinely objective scientific knowledge that the place of the subject as a real being in the production of knowledge must be taken into account. Scientific knowledge is not only genetically conditioned by the practical-object relationship of man to the world, but also functions continuously in the broad system of practical-value orientations. Essential to the Marxist understanding of the categories of materialist dialectics as the methodological apparatus of scientific knowledge is the historical approach to the analysis of knowledge, awareness that the dialectically interpreted history of the subject-object relationship brings about changes not only in knowledge, but also in its logical structure. The development of science goes hand in hand with the transformation of its logical structure, which is expressed, on the one side, in the changes that take place in the relationship between the theoretical and empirical levels of knowledge, the role of models and mathematical formalisms, and, on the other, in the changes affecting the categorial structure of scientific thought. Thus, for example, the revolutionary shift currently experienced by science (an essential component of the scientific and technological revolution) finds specific expression in the promotion of those categories of scientific thought which were "in the shade" during the period of classical natural science (object-relationship, system-element, subject-object, and so on). This shift is also expressed in a change in the logical relationships between the categories functioning in cognition (often described as the new "style" of natural scientific thought).

Of great importance in this context is Lenin's idea that the Marxist theory of knowledge and dialectics should be built up from such fields of knowledge as the history of philosophy, the history of knowledge in general, the history of the specialised sciences, the history of the mental development of the child, and of animals, the history of language, the psychology and physiology of the sense organs. [Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, p253] "Continuation of the work of Hegel and Marx," Lenin wrote, "must consist in the dialectical elaboration of the history of human thought, science and technique." [Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, p146] Materialist dialectics as the methodology of cognition points to the wealth of the historical experience of mankind's cognitive activity and emphasises the relative, limited character of any "closed" logico-methodological system. The categories of Marxist dialectics are not just a set of rigid devices that never change. These categories do change and are enriched as science and social practice develop. So the Marxist methodological analysis of science cannot be reduced to the application of a set of cut-and-dried categories or to the analysis of this or that ossified scientific theory. It presupposes an essentially historical approach both to science and to philosophy. At the same time the full realisation of the broad programme proposed by Lenin for the study of the history of knowledge is a task that has yet to be accomplished by the Marxists of today. We must now consider yet another aspect of the dialectic of subject and object, an aspect which has particular significance when one is discussing the methodological problems of the sciences concerning man. We have already stated that the production of objective knowledge presupposes not simply the subject's passive assimilation of content that is externally given; it implies purposeful activity on the part of the subject, activity which also includes a certain degree of self-reflection, that is to say, the subject's awareness both of his place in the objective world, and also of the character of his activity in relation to objects. Now we must emphasise another fundamental element of Marxist philosophy: the subject can know himself only insofar as he clarifies his place in objective reality, insofar as he relates himself and his world-the world of his mind, an ideal world-with the world of real objects, natural bodies, on the one hand, and, on the other, the socially significant objects created by mankind (instruments of labour and other products of human activity comprising socially-tested means of operation, language symbols, etc.). Only by knowing the objective world and establishing the results of his cognition in an objectified form can the subject arrive at himself, at the world of his consciousness, at the psychological and the ideal. There is no other way for the subject to know himself. Thus not only is the object not given immediately for the subject; it has to be reproduced by the activity of the subject more and more accurately in knowledge. Nor is the subject himself given immediately in relation to himself (in contrast to the views held by Descartes and Husserl). At the same time the subject does not stand "beyond" his activity as a kind of mysterious "thing in itself", whose manifestation in the world of phenomena has nothing in common with its essence (Kant and Schopenhauer). The subject removed from his activity in objectivising, transforming and ideally reproducing the objective world is empty, meaningless and simply does not exist as a historical subject. "Neither nature objectively nor nature subjectively is directly given in a form adequate to the human being," wrote Karl Marx [1844 Manuscripts, Critique of Hegel's Dialectic]. Man's experiencing of himself as "ego" presupposes his learning the forms of human intercourse (in relation to any given individual they appear to be an objective force) and the possibility, to a certain degree, of regarding himself from the position of "another person", the generalised representative of society, a social class or group. Man cognises himself by cognising the forms of social life activity created by mankind. Moreover, the process of self-knowledge is endless because his cognition of these forms is accompanied by constant creation of new forms. Thus the point is not that the subject as a ready-made, definite object in himself is simply infinitely complex in his internal connections and mediacies, but that the subject is not ready-made at all; on the contrary, he emerges as something which is not equal to himself, as a continuous "outlet" beyond his own limits. Moreover, any act of cognition of the object forms created by mankind turns out to be connected with the subject's rethinking of himself, with his setting new tasks and creating new forms of activity. It is this fact that is reflected in the Marxist conception of practice as the global historical process of the object-transforming activity of the subject in the Marxist understanding of man not as a passive product of externally given objective conditions, but as the creator of his own history in accordance with the objective laws of historical development. Hence the thesis of the subject's socio-historical nature which is of such importance in Marxism. Also fundamental to Marxism is the thesis that the subject of practice and knowledge is not an "epistemological Robinson", but a vehicle of sociality, "the ensemble of the social relations" (Marx). Since the subject's being socially conditioned implies his membership of a social group, particularly some class or other, this is bound to have an effect on the character of both practice and knowledge. In class society there can be no single "universal human" practice. There is only the practice of different, often opposed social classes and, above all, such classes as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This fact has a very substantial effect on the character of cognition by subjects involved in various types of social activity. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider in detail the methodological problems connected with the subject's cognition and such specific forms of his life activity as the consciousness, mentality and the ideal.

It is beyond the scope of this article to consider in detail the methodological problems connected with the subject's cognition and such specific forms of his life activity as the consciousness, mentality and the ideal. We can only refer to the fruitful work being done in contemporary psychology on the problem of the ideal as realisation of the Marxist philosophical thesis that the subject should be understood not as a special "purely spiritual" thing standing alongside the world of objective things, but primarily as the socially conditioned subject of practical activity. We have in mind above all the works of the Soviet psychologists L. Vygotsky and A. Leontyev. In these studies the notion of the ideal is realised not simply as passive contemplation of certain ideal essences distinct from real physical objects, but as a special form of activity, an activity whose operations stem from practical activity in transforming real objects, although it is not directly concerned with them but with objects that represent other real objects (language symbols, the drawings and symbols used in knowledge, the canvas and paints in painting, the marble in sculpture). The ideal object is distinguished from the real not by the fact that it exists somewhere in another world (the ideal can be established only insofar as it is embodied in material, sensuously perceptible objects), but by the fact that the ideal object represents another object, i.e., "speaks" not about itself but about this other object. Thus the ideal is a special kind of activity embodied in an externally sensuous form. This does not rule out the fact that certain moments of ideal activity may subsequently become "involuted", that is to say, the subject may cease to be aware of them and the ideal may thus become "interiorised", in which case the ideal presents itself to the subject as direct contemplation of an externally given object and appears to be a kind of essence existing in some special ideal world. At the same time we must not forget the distinction between ideal and practical activity. The distinction lies in the fact that ideal activity takes part as a necessary component in human life activity as a whole only to the extent that it succeeds in one form or another (as a rule, in a rather complex and mediated form) in finding a way to practical activity. The product of practice has value for man in itself. The ideal object as a product of ideal activity is valuable not in itself, not in its "corporeal", objectified nature, but only as related to another object, as a representative of reality. In other words, practice changes reality, while ideal activity is the reflection of reality. This article has dealt with only some fundamental elements of the relationship between the Marxist understanding of the subject-object dialectic and contemporary problems of the methodology of science. The whole great complex of these problems demands comprehensive and detailed working out from Marxist positions. Marxism & Psychology Index

V A Lektorsky 1980 Subject Object Cognition Contents Preface to the English Edition Introduction Part One: Conceptions of Cognitive Relation in the Non-Marxist Epistemological Theories Chapter 1. Interpretation of Cognition as Interaction of Two Natural Systems 1. Interpretation of Knowledge as the Result of a Causal Effect of the Object on the Subject 2. The Theory of Cognitive “Equilibrium” Between Subject and Object 3. The View of Cognition as an Ensemble of the Subject’s Physical Operations Chapter 2. The Interpretation of Cognition as Determined by the Structure of Consciousness 1. The Problem of Substantiating Knowledge and “Radical” Reflection 2. Transcendental Subject, Empirical Subject. The Conception of Self-Certainty of Transcendental Consciousness 3. The Fact of Knowledge and the Transcendental Interpretation of the Conditions of Its Possibility 4. The Conception of the “Life World” and Uniqueness of Place of Empirical Subject in the Structure of Experience 5. The Interpretation of Cognition as Conditioned by the Individual Consciousness Part Two: The Marxist Approach Cognition as Socially-Mediated Historically Developing Activity of Reflection Chapter 1. Reflection. Object-Related Practical Activity and Communication 1. Sensory Information and Object-Related Knowledge 2. Illusions and Reality 3. Cognition and Object-Related Practical Activity 4. Reification of Knowledge, Communication, and the Social Nature of Cognition Chapter 2. Theory and the World of Objects 1. Observable and Non-Observable Objects 2. Idealised and Real Objects Chapter 3. Worlds and the Problem of Continuity of Experience 1. Objectiveness of Knowledge and the Possibility of a Gap Between Perceptive and Conceptual Systems 2. The Conception of Ontological Relativity 3. Translation and the Problem of Understanding 4. “Other Worlds” and the Successive Replacement of the Forms of Objectification of Knowledge Chapter 4. Reflection about Knowledge and the Development of Cognition 1. Self-Consciousness and Reflection. Explicit and Implicit Knowledge 2. Substantiation and Development of Knowledge 3. Reflection as a Unity of Reflection and Transformation of Its Object 4. The Collective Subject. The Individual Subject 5. How Is a Theory of Cognition Possible? Conclusion Notes The Dialectic of Subject and Object and the Methodology of Science, V.A. Lektorsky 1977 M.I.A. Library | Psychology | Philosophy Value_of_Knowledge Reference Archive

Henri LAURENT IN THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE Source: Patrice Lumumba: Fighter for Africa’s Freedom, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1961, pp 90-93. Written: by Henri LAURENT, Belgian journalist; Transcribed: by Thomas Schmidt. His name appeared on the political horizon in the days when the rattle of tommy-guns was heard in Leopoldville and Stanleyville. Baudouin I, King of Belgium, had arrived in the Congo. That was in December 1959. Lumumba, founder of the Congo National Movement Party, was in prison. The king, it was said, would establish concord between the whites and the Negroes. The royal triumphal voyage was announced as though white men had never shed the blood of Negroes, as though the Congolese would fall down on their faces at the sight of the white king and chant his praise for his benefactions. Inwardly, the colonialists felt jittery. They were wondering whether it would not be the other way round, whether the king would not be hooted. They started cleverly spreading rumours among the Congolese. It was whispered into their ears that Baudouin I was a "good white man", that he would have Patrice Lumumba released from prison into which the "bad white men" had thrown him. They were obliged to release him only when the notorious round-table conference started in Brussels, at which the independence of the Congo was fixed for June 30, 1960. Lumumba arrived at the conference with the marks of manacles on his wrists. Like the other Congolese leaders, he was an object of exaggerated attentions. Money was offered to him. Hypocritical expressions of regret at his ill-treatment were made to him. Of course, Count Gobert d'Aspremont-Lynden, the Grand Maréchal of the Court of Baudouin I, was not at the conference in person. But his nephew, Count Harold d'Aspremont-Lynden, was. The interests of the first administrator of the Katanga Company were defended by the second. Now that nephew is a member of the Belgian Cabinet. Minister Ganshof van der Meersch also addressed the conference. He pressed his hand to his heart and was profuse in his expressions of love for the Congolese. His son, a naturalised American citizen, arrived in Belgium at that time. He had come to Brussels to explore the ground in the interests of powerful financial corporations in the U.S.A. Others behind the scenes were Gillet and Cousin, President and General Director of the Union Miniere, Humble, President of l'Union des Colons of Katanga, who practically came out in support of Tshombe. Colonel Weber was there, too, the man who was replaced by the French Colonel Trinquier as head of Tshombe's legions, the legions of the Union Miniere. Lumumba was hard at work organising his movement in view of the coming general elections in the Congo. The colonialists had done their best to create a host of petty tribal opposition groups against him. Being set on securing the election of a Congolese Parliament that would serve them faithfully, they went to work still more intensively to fan inter-tribal animosity. Already at that time they were keeping Tshombe in reserve. Proclaim the "independence" of Katanga? Why, what for? Everything in good time! The thing was, first, to try to keep the Congo whole. So the colonialists put on winning smiles for Lumumba.... But when the elections were held, when Lumumba's Party won a sweeping victory, which made it impossible to create a parliamentary majority against him, they got the wind up and started to manoeuvre. Lumumba was to be in the Government but not as its head. The idea was to make him a political captive, to use his name and prevent him from pursuing his own policy. It was like trying to make an elephant play the role of a mouse! When this plan failed the Union Minière people called in their reserves. They praised Tshombe to the skies. They proclaimed the "independence" of Katanga, from where they hoped to reconquer the whole of the Congo. What happened next, everyone knows. The armed intervention by Belgium, the United Nations.... The Central Government of the Republic was hamstrung by Hammarskjöld. The soldiers of this Government were disarmed on the pretext that all bloodshed was to be avoided.... At the same time Tshombe armed his forces with impunity! In the end Lumumba was delivered over to him bound hand and foot. The imperialists knew what victim to choose. They dealt a dastardly blow at the symbol of Congolese independence and liberty. But do they really believe that in destroying the symbol they will destroy the cause it stood for? Lumumba was the object of their blind hatred. Things reached a point during the general strike in Belgium where the reactionary newspapers frequently represented the most respected leaders of the workers, the most courageous fighters for the cause of the working class, as people who "emulate Lumumba"! Actually, this cry of hatred was an admission of glory. Following the expressions of horror which the murder of Patrice Lumumba and his two associates has evoked in the Congo and throughout the world, I hear the stirring cry "Justice!" This cry has reached Belgium, where those who paid Lumumba's assassins and shed the blood of the workers during the strike are hiding in their rich salons. The blood of the Prime Minister of the Congo, the blood of the workers of Belgium—the circle is completed. Imperialism stands branded with the badge of infamy. Marxism and Anti-Imperialism in Africa |Patrice Lumumba Archive

Lev VOLODIN LAST DAYS OF FREEDOM Source: Patrice Lumumba: Fighter for Africa’s Freedom, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1961, pp 104-110. Written: by Lev VOLODIN, Soviet journalist; Transcribed: by Thomas Schmidt. The rain poured all that evening, and from our verandah we gazed at the turbid curtain of water that hid the silent city from view. Our host was 25-year-old Jacques N. With the quick gestures of a youth and the firm gaze of a man who had seen much in his life, he spoke in an emotion-filled voice of the days when Patrice Lumumba struggled against the men who accomplished the September coup d'etat. Jacques had been one of Lumumba's associates and had worked with him. He told me how Lumumba's departure from his closely guarded residence was planned and carried out in November 1960. Jacques had helped in that daring escape and remembered everything down to the last detail. All I had to do was to write down what he said, to keep pace with his rapid flow of words. Here is his story: It was a rainy evening. We were in Leopoldville, where we were surrounded by enemies. Lumumba had spent two months behind a double ring of troops. It was impossible to see him, but we spoke to him from time to time, using the telephone in a U.N. guardhouse. On the first day of his imprisonment Lumumba ordered us to be prepared to leave Leopoldville so as to continue an open fight against the rebels from some other place. Many political leaders, Ministers and M.P.s prepared to leave the city. According to Lumumba's plan the whole operation was to take one or two days and we were to go at different times and use different routes. November 27, 1960, was the day set for our departure. All that day we waited for a telephone call from Lumumba. The telephone rang at six in the evening when an autumn tropical shower was pouring down from the sky. "I am ready," Lumumba said. "Drive to the house and wait there." Victor B. and I put two old rifles in our car and sped to Lumumba's house in the driving rain. Troops were patrolling the entrance. Most of them were hiding from the rain under a tree. We took in the entire scene at a glance. Our plan was simple: if the troops noticed Lumumba in the car we would fire at them to cover his escape. The gates swung open and a big black Chevrolet appeared. The driver, Maurice, stopped the car and, replying to a query from the soldiers, said: "I'm taking the servants home. It will soon be night." In the rain and darkness the sergeant could not see who was in the car. "Open the door, we'll check," he ordered the driver. We released the safety catches on our rifles. The guards had only one rifle. The others were stacked beneath an awning. But at that moment we heard Lumumba cry: "Maurice, step on the gas!" The powerful car sprang forward, the soldiers shouted and ran for their rifles. But it was too late. The car took several turnings at full speed and Lumumba was soon on the highway. Another car was waiting for us at the aerodrome. From there we began our journey to Stanleyville. That evening we drove for more than two hundred kilometres along a muddy and bumpy road. We were stopped by the Kwilu River, where we had a small incident. The ferrymen flatly refused to take us across. We were surprised and asked them for the reason. "It's the rule. We are not allowed to ferry Congolese after 10 p.m." Lumumba went to the ferrymen. "Don't you know that there are new orders now, that the power in the land belongs to us? The Belgians no longer rule the Congo." "That's true. But we've had no new instructions. That is why we are keeping the old rules." One of the ferrymen raised his lantern and suddenly shouted in wild excitement: "It's Lumumba!" There and then, on a piece of paper, Lumumba wrote instructions allowing Congolese to be ferried across the river' at any time. When we were on the far bank, he said sadly: "What a terrible heritage! They don't even realise that they can decide something themselves, that they are free. It will be difficult to work, but we will surmount everything and give the people knowledge. That is the main thing. It will be easier after that." We drove all night and then, without resting, all day. Our plan to travel in secrecy failed. The people recognised Lumumba and warmly greeted him wherever our cars appeared. The news, relayed by "bamboo telegraph", that the Prime Minister was coming in person travelled from village to village faster than our cars. At Masi-Manimba, an administrative centre, the population showered Lumumba's car with flowers. Crowds of people barred our way. They brought us chicken, eggs and bananas to show that they were kindly disposed towards us. In many villages the people came out with weapons, thinking that Lumumba was mustering volunteers against the rebels. In Mangaya, at a rally that was held spontaneously, Lumumba said: "Brothers, put away your weapons. But look after them, for you will need them. We shall have to fight for freedom. The colonialists don't want to give it to us peacefully, so we'll win it fighting them." During a short halt, after we had crossed the Brabanta River, Lumumba talked to us round a fire. He spoke of the future unification of our forces, of a new army, of the need to rely on the people. "You see, the people support the Government because our programme is clear: complete independence, the Congo for the Congolese. Fourteen million Congolese want work, a better future for their children. They want to be citizens with full political rights, they want a new life.