The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 13, 1927, Page 10

> wee The Paris Congress of the Amsterdam ARLY in August the Fourth Congress ef the L F. . U. (International Federation of Trade Unions) will take place in Paris. The publication, a few days back, of the written report of this sessien enables us even now to form some idea of the significance of, the coming event and of the entire constitution of the Amsterdam International. To put it plainly, the report is an appalling document of the hopeless situation into which the I. F. T. U. has” got, thanks to’ the meniality of its leaders. Very naturally, the god-sent leaders of the.“*West- European trade-union movement” will not concur in our opinion, For in almost every line the report reflects the pride and satisfaction of Oudegéest and his clique in the wonderful achievements of the working class under their leadership, The membership movement, both in the individual countries and as a whole, speaks in very different accents, which, however, give food for thought to any sober observer, In the years under review the membership receded from 16,530,000 to 13,500,000, although the accession of four new sections had allegedly caused an increase of 163,000. There was thus-a net loss of 3,200,000 members. Nor is the state of affairs. any better in regard to the financial resources of the I. F, T. U. The report says nothing of the fact that there have in this connection already been very serious differences of opinion within the Amsterdam management, the English in particular. being dissatisfied with Oude- geest’s administration of the funds. But why should this matter, which has already raised much dust in public and does not reflect to the credit of Ouvde- geest and Sassenbach, be dished up again in the report? In 1924 the business year started with a balance of 30,000 guilders on the credit side, but in 1925 this amount had shrunk to barely 1,000 guilders, while the financial report of 1926 shows a deficit of 71,000 guilders. While in 1924, 168,000 guilders were collected in subscriptions, and in 1925, 164,000, the subscription revenue in 1926 figured at only 126,000 guilders, against an expenditure of 200,000. The great deficit, however, is by no means to be attributed to expenditure in connection with strikes, but is merely a deficit of administrative expenditure. Added to this, the report still tells us two remarkable facts, the one ‘being that prior to 1924 the staff numbered 48, not including the three secretaries, while at the close of 1926 it only numbered 20, and the other that certain countries are desirous of paying smaller subscriptions in future. : Of the 126,000 guilders gubscribed in 1926, Ger- many alone paid 54,677, Great Britain 37,418, and France 2,028, the balance being divided among the 20 other states which are affiliated to the I. F. T. U. Thus, as any one can see, the I. F, T. U. is prac-- tically nothing but a combination of German and British trade unions. Interest, however, also attaches to that part of the report which speaks of the cultural propaganda and information activity of. the I. F. T. U. We here learn that it is practically only in Germany that the publications of the I. F. T. U. find a market, though even there not very many copies can be disposed of. This greater German demand may be explained by the party orders of the trade-union leaders to account of the union funds and the sub- sequent gratuitous distribution among the subor- dinate organs. The English have but little interest in the printed matter distributed by Oudegeest; and International By FRITZ HECKERT a the French have none at all. Thus of Sassenbach’s “celebrated” wprk on “25 Years of the International Trade Union Movement,” 2,000 copies were sold in Germany out of a total of 3,000 offered for sale, whereas in England the sales effected only figured at 90 out of 2,000 and in France at 40 out of 2,000. A similar state of affairs to that in the L. F. ie, is that in the international professional secretariats, among which that of the transport workers, num- bering 2,146,000 members, is possibly the best off. Other secretariates with.more than one million mem- bers each are those of-the metal workers (1,728,000 members) and the miners (1,688,000 members). It is with some satisfaction that the report in various places makes mention of the fact that the session of the advisory council of October, 1925, succeeded in . re-appointing Frank Hodges in place of Cook as ‘leader of the miners’ secretariate. This is a some- what painful passage in the fair report, seeing that Hodges has now so openly ome a yellow leader. In studying that part of the report which treats of the “relations with the non-affiliated organiza- tions,” we shall have no difficulty in observing that for the Amsterdam leaders the criterion in regard to the various organizations is not the question whether the organization in question is or is not based on class-warfare against capitalism. If the organization is in favor of a working community with the capitalists, it ‘will be welcome; if, on the other hand, it favors the proletarian revolution, it must be opposed. : j 5 i i i * by i i For people like the ultra-conservatiye and. actively ie m- counter-revolutionary Green, the leader of the erican Federation of Labor, there are no limits, No concession would be too great if only Green would join. As yet, this hero is dissatisfied with the I. F. T. U., for (firstly) it affords no strict autonomy to all the affiliated countries, (secondly) it still embodies a resolution in favor of socialisation, and (thirdly) the subscription fees are too high. Never- theless, Amsterdam has much gratification in wel- SUDS ~a —And Fancy Sads to Drink Sal tl a coming the resolutions of the American Labor Union Congress, makes further offers, and declares Green’s attitude to be the outcome of a misunders The report expresses surprise that Green sho “yet consider the affiliation of the A, F. O. L. to the I. F. T. U. impossible.” - If the tone adopted. by the servile Amsterda spokesmen in their.dealings with the Yankees: is abject, they wax brave and gallant as regards— China. During the Shanghai strike of 1925, Am- sterdam received a request from Shanghai for the initiation of a relief action, while at the same time the English suggested that a delegation be sent to China to study the labor conditions there. The out- come was that: “The Executive of the I. F. T.. U. has come to the conclusion that there can be no question of sending a delegation. At the same time it is considered fruitless to institute an inquiry of the kind at a time of continuous civil war.” So much for the question of a delegation. In regard to the relief action, meanwhile it was decreed that: . x “Whereas no ‘reliable information could be gathered as to the cause and extent of the conflict and as to the organizations affected, their membership, etc., the International Fed- eration of Trade Unions was not authorized to initiate a relief action” (p, 36 of the report). Many pages of the report are devoted to Moscow, the R. I, L. U.; and the Russian trade unions. The entire correspondence between the I. F. T. U, and the all-Russian Federation of Trade Unions, and part of that with the Anglo-Russian committee was cop- ied for the purpose of proving that Moscow is the worst of all evils and Amsterdam the brave knight fighting for the unity of the international trade union movement. Many words and much hypocrisy. We need but read the reports of the sessions of the professienal internationals, and we shall find that the resolutions in regard to the relations with Mos- cow contain not only one contradiction after an- other, but also the shameless maneuvers of Amster- dam against trade union unity. “A glance at page 57 will show why the West-European workers must oppose a uniting of their trade uniens with those of Russia. : “The policy pursued by the Russian Federa- tion of Trade Unions in this period and -par- «ticularly in 1926, has once more convinced the I, F. T. U. that its own tactics (of having noth- ing to do.with the Russians) have been alto- gether right. The attitude adopted towards the leadership of the British Trades Union Con- gress both during and after the. coal-miner’s strike js obvious proof of the fact that the Russian Trade Union Federation denies the right of self-determination in the trade union movement of. the individual countries. It has never been more patent than during the mining « dispute that the Russian Trade Union Federa- tion interprets the word “unity” only’ in the sense of “‘subjection! to Moscow’s doctrines.” - The self-sacrificing fight put up by Russian trade unions for the victory of the British miners is there- fore taken as confirmation of the aecuracy of the Amsterdam policy of—preventing unity with the Russians. A precious admission on the part of the famous labor leaders of Amsterdam. This fully suffices for any worker to recognize the said lead- ers, and he cannot fail to know their meaning when they attempt to make their alibi in the following terms: > “Their (the Russians’) great membership and the. consequent influence exercised on the reso- lutions, afford the Russian trade union move- ment the guarantee that their wishes would enjoy consideration. in so far as they are in keeping with the principles and policy of the | International Federation of Trade Unions” Fully a dozen pages are deyoted to the British miners’ strike. The preceding paragraph shows plainly in what spirit this subject, too, is treated. The question is never raised as to whether the Am- sterdam tactics, the attitude of the British trade union leaders, or the attitude of the foreign miners’ sections were not also partly responsible for the de- feat of the miners. There were only two disagree- able things during the confict, the “inciting” and “trade-union undermining” attitude of the Russians, and the renitent conduct of the strike under the leadership of Cook. The report even has the effron- tery to say some words in praise of the shameful business of the five per cent loan granted the British trade unions through the “co-operation” of Oude- geest and Sassenbach. At the same time it does not forget to express its decided disapproval of the fact that the English also turned for help to trade unions not affiliated to the I. F. T. U. True, without the help of the Russian trade unions, the British miners’ fight would have broken down a few months earlier, which would yet have enhanced the fame of the strike-breaking international. The list showing the aid received by the miners from the fndividuals countries is highly interesting. Per trade union member. Holland gave 118 cents, Denmark 68, Switzerland 29, Sweden 18, Germany 15, France 9.6. The Germans “excused” themselves for the pau- city of their active-help by referring to “the Repara- (Continued on Page 8)