The Coming War

Moshe Noah Averbach

Draft Thesis on the War Question

[The article starts with a quote from L.D. Trotsky, War and the Fourth International, Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933–34, New York 1975, pp. 299–300, from: ‘The catastrophic commercial, industrial, agrarian and financial crisis ...’, to ‘Only the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the insurgent proletariat can save humanity from a now devastating slaughter of peoples.’]

The disintegration of Europe, the collapse of the League of Nations, the bid of the USA for world hegemony, the Japanese offensive in the Far East, all reveal the desperate plight of world imperialism, and the drive towards a new imperialist war.

It is impossible to predict precisely where and when the first shot will be fired. Circumstances may compel the Japanese military camarilla to strike the first blow, while there is yet time, though under the influence of the Soviet-American agreement, as well as internal difficulties, Japan may be forced into temporary retreat. The Saar basin, the Balkan Peninsula, or the Danubian countries may all provide the initiative. The multitude of factors and the interturning [sic – intertwining?] of conflicting forces exclude the possibility of a concrete prognosis. But the general tendency of development is absolutely clear: the postwar period has simply been transformed into an interval between two wars, and this interval is vanishing before our very eyes. Planned, corporative or state capitalism which goes hand in hand with the authoritarian, Bonapartist or Fascist state, remains a utopia and a lie insofar as it sets itself the official task of a harmonious national economy on the basis of private property. But it is a menacing reality insofar as it is a question of concentrating all the economic forces of the nation for the preparation of a new war. This work is proceeding now with full steam. A new great war is knocking at the gates. It will be crueller, more destructive than its predecessor. This very fact makes the attitude towards the oncoming war the pivotal question of proletarian policy.

The USSR and Imperialist War

[This entire section is a quote from LD Trotsky, ‘War and the Fourth International’, The Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34, New York 1975, pp. 303–4.]

South Africa and the Next Imperialist War

Through its economic investments, British imperialism remains the real ruler of South Africa. All the talk about ‘Sovereign Independence’, ‘Free Association of Nations within the British Commonwealth’ etc, is mere camouflage to hide the real rôle of British imperialism in South Africa.

The most important industries, like the gold, coal and diamond mines, the sugar industry and so on, are almost completely controlled by British capital. Most of the government, provincial and municipal loans are raised in the British money market. British capitalists form the majority of railway bond holders. All the vital economic keys of the country, including the banking system, are in the hands of British imperialism.

With this stranglehold on South Africa’s economic resources, British imperialism is able to, and does, play the leading rôle in directing the different political currents of the country. Any one of the major political parties, when in power, whether it is the SAP, Nationalists (Hertzogites and Malanites), Fusionists, etc, can only function as the political executive of British capitalism – the tool of imperialist bandits and exploiters.

The chief political expression of British imperialism and its local representatives, the Chamber of Mines, is the Fusion Party, which takes the place of the old SAP.

Fusion is the political preparation for war – to ensure ‘peace’ internally, while British imperalism is engaged in a bloody struggle to maintain its world supremacy. To this end, war preparations are proceeding at a feverish pace. The Special Service Battalions are the first steps towards the militarisation of the unemployed youth. The Defence Force is being tightened up, the Air and Coastal Defences are being reorganised. Fusion complements on the political field what Pirow is preparing in the military field.

The Malanite section of the Nationalist Party represents the small white agrarian interests, the small or middle farmer, the bywoners, poor whites, etc. It also represents the minor industries (boots, clothes, textiles, etc) which it seeks to protect from ‘foreign’ competition by means of heavy tariff barriers. The Malanites carry on a demagogic campaign against imperialism, which must be exploited to the full by the Communist League. While utilising Malan’s anti-imperialist programme for its own revolutionary ends, the Communist League must make it clear to the toiling masses, that when in power, the Malanites can only act as the lackeys of British imperialism, even as its [sic] forerunners the SAP, Nationalists and Fusionists. That the power of British imperialism can only be broken by the revolutionary action of the toiling masses, and the setting up of a workers’ and peasants’ government.

The Labour Party will, in the near future, play a rôle of growing importance in South African politics. Painfully, it is already emerging from the swamp into which it was drawn by its own treachery and opportunism. Representing large strata of the privileged white workers, it will continue to draw to its banner, failing a real workers’ party, a Communist Party, those white workers who will in time become disillusioned with the Fusionists and Malanites. Judging by its past record, and by present indications, the SALP can be relied upon to support British imperialism in the coming war.

The minor political currents, represented by the Stallardites (Dominion Party), the Centre Party (Roosites), Grey Shirts and the Communist Party, play an altogether unimportant rôle in South African politics. Of these groups, the Grey Shirts represent the greatest potential menace to the working class, but at present they represent only small sections of shopkeepers, other unimportant sections of the middle class, and misguided workers who lack a revolutionary workers’ party to which they can turn for guidance.

A general survey of the situation reveals the fact that British imperialism has succeeded in entrenching itself more firmly than ever as the dominating force in South Africa, but it is equally true that a growth in the strength of British imperialism leads to a corresponding growth in the anti-imperialist forces within the country.

In the Second World War, which in the existing international, political and economic situation is liable to break out at any moment, British imperialism will, without any doubt, force the government of the country – whichever party is in power – into active participation on its side. But, it is quite possible that a large section of the population will attempt to organise resistance to the government’s attempts to inveigle the country in war. If such a thing could happen in the last war, it is even more probable that it will be repeated to a greater extent in the coming war. Without doubt, such an opposition will find its political expression through an opposition parliamentary party. If the Malanite-Nationalists are still an opposition party, then it is more than probable that they will lead the opposition to South Africa’s entry into war. To say in advance that such a campaign for neutrality is doomed to failure, is not correct. In time of world war, when the fate of every belligerent imperialistic power hangs in the balance, any new obstacle can bring down the scale. If the struggle for neutrality will draw in large sections of the black and white toilers – and this is the task of the revolutionary party – and work to arm them, it can be of tremendous significance for the complete emancipation of the exploited masses from the yoke of imperialist-capitalist domination, even if British imperialism does succeed in forcing South Africa into the war.

From this it is clear how essential it is for the revolutionary party to keep in touch with the neutrality sentiments of the masses, to participate actively in that movement and to direct it into a revolutionary channel. Through such action, it will be possible for the Communist League to win the confidence of the masses, and to place itself at the head of the workers and peasants, irrespective of whether the struggle for neutrality is successful or not.

* * *

Yudel Burlak
Draft Thesis on the War Question

WHEREAS THERE is unanimity concerning the general theses on war (See War and the Fourth International), there seems to be a difference of opinion when we come to deal with our policy and slogans for South Africa. This flows from divergent views on the possibility of keeping South Africa out of a new world war.

To clear our minds on this point we must make a thorough examination of imperialism; we must consider the correlation of forces in South Africa; we must analyse the political parties and their relations to imperialism and war.

It would be a mistake to include in one formula all the dominions and their relations to Britain. Such a generalisation would not be worthy of a Marxist. It is impossible to draw any useful comparison between Ireland and South Africa, [or] between Canada and New Zealand. There is not only the fact that none of the other Dominions has a subjected and oppressed native population comprising three-fourths of the total population, as is the ease in South Africa. In the Irish Free State there is but a small percentage of British, while in Australia and New Zealand there is a very large preponderance of British. In Canada, as in South Africa, the white population is divided almost equally, in Canada between French and British, in South Africa between Dutch and British. Therefore the natural and cultural bonds between Great Britain on the one hand and New Zealand and Australia on the other, are the strongest, [and] between Great Britain and the Irish Free State the weakest. Midway there stand Canada and South Africa, the last more loosely bound than Canada on account of the hostility of the Dutch population towards Great Britain since the last Boer War.

But not so the economic situation and ties. If in Canada British imperialism has to compete and share with American imperialism, if Australia has her own industries and more external trade with other countries, in South Africa the case is different. Here the grip of British imperialism is strongest.

Except the primary industry of agriculture, almost all the assets of South Africa belong to Britain or Britishers. The gold mines, the greater part of the diamonds, the coal, the sugar industry and the secondary industries such as building, shoemaking, clothing, engineering, Brewery Trust, Tobacco Trust ete, and the transport, airways, shipping, tram and bus services, are in the hands of Britain.

The whole public debt of South Africa is in British hands. The government loans, as well as of the provinces and municipalities, the railways, the electricity supply, all loans are directly or indirectly in the hands of Great Britain. The banks which control industrial life, export, import and credit, the Standard Bank and Barclay’s Bank, belong to British capital and are controlled by British finance. The same is true of the insurance system. So we see that the whole economic life of South Africa is controlled by British finance capital. South Africa is indebted to Great Britain to the extent of 318 millions, and it is this position as a sole creditor that makes the rule of British imperialism in South Africa so impregnable, as long as capitalism rules.

How does the grip and rule of imperialism manifest itself? Directly through the finance and money market of the City of London and through their representatives, the banks, indirectly through the Chamber of Mines, Chamber of Industry, and Chamber of Commerce. Let those simple souls who believe in democracy, who do not understand the nature of the state, and who think that South Africa is ruled by her government and parliament, look for a majority or minority of the South African Party, or the Nationalist Party, or the Malanites, to decide who is at present ruling South Africa, and how the correlation of forces will manifest itself when war breaks out. We Marxists must never lose sight of the indisputable fact that parliament here as elsewhere is a mere show for simple souls. In the present epoch of imperialism the ultimate deciding factor is the dominating finance capital. And more especially will this be the case in a time of crisis such as war.

The best and clearest manifestation of the rule of finance capital was in the matter of the Gold Standard. Although the majority of the country and in parliament was for remaining on the Gold Standard, the pressure of the City of London and the Chamber of Mines forced South Africa off gold and subjected the ‘independent’ South African Pound to the British Pound. Today we are dragged into the inflation policy and currency manipulations of Great Britain automatically and unreservedly, in spite of the existence of the ‘independent’ Reserve Bank, just as if in the same way we should have been without its existence – like Rhodesia or Kenya. It is no longer a secret that Britain is in a state of financial war with the USA, and we in South Africa are automatically dragged into this war. There can be no better example of the rule of finance capital in this country than our course of action in relation to the Gold Standard.

Dependent on the gold industry is the balancing of the budget, our granting of subsidies and bounties to agriculture, our debt settlement, the extension of bonds by the Land Bank, the development of our irrigation schemes. And the greater this dependence on the gold industry, the more powerful is British finance capital and its representative, the Chamber of Mines. It was British finance capital that forced the country off gold; it was British finance capital that forced the coalition upon those who up to that time had been deadly enemies (remember Smuts and Herzog); and it is British finance capital that is now forcing Fusion.

Setting aside the aims of both parties in Fusion, such aims as higher and more stable profits, a settlement of the Native Question, that is, a permanent settlement securing the supply of cheap and yet cheaper labour, eliminating even the existing competition, we can see that by Fusion finance capital will strengthen its position. For Fusion means a breaking up of the Nationalist Party, a split which must weaken it, and on the other hand a consolidation and a strengthening of the South African Party. Even if after Fusion there should come a clash over the war question, the Nationalist Party is broken. The Malanites may gain a few seats here and there, but the strength, even in Parliament, is shifting from the Nationalists to the more willing and pliable tools of imperialism.

We can safely assume that, when England declares war, she will declare it for the whole Empire, consulting of course the governments of the Dominions in accordance with the Dominion Status as defined by the Statute of Westminster. Having the right and obligation of Empire defence, she obviously has the right to control the Empire’s foreign policy. This was true in 1914 and is true now, except that the Irish Free State may declare neutrality, whereupon her strategic points will be occupied by the British Navy. In the case of South Africa, Empire control is the more sure because this country is of vital importance to Great Britain in time of war. The value of the trade routes to India, Australia and New Zealand, the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials, Rhodesian copper, the control of the Southern Atlantic, and the more than ever necessary gold, besides the ‘protection of investments’, would exclude the possibility of England leaving South Africa to her fate, would exclude the possibility of neutrality for South Africa. No sensible man can consider seriously the position, in case of war, of a neutral South Africa, trading with both sides. Who is going to protect the trade in such a situation? Will England allow enemy ships to call at South African ports and allow South Africa to supply the enemy with foodstuffs and gold? Therefore all the talk about the right of neutrality is indeed academic. No statesman can take it earnestly. The significance of the fact that General Smuts would not concede this point of neutrality even for the sake of Fusion, yet nevertheless yielded to Herzog the right to disagree with him, thus allowing him to save his face, the significance of the visit to the Dominions of Lord Hankey, the Chairman of the Empire Defence Committee, the reorganisation of South Africa’s wireless system by England’s leading man, of the harbours by England’s leading man, and of the military and air forces by others of Great Britain’s leading men, all this must be kept in mind when we consider the war question in its relation to South Africa. As Colonel Brink said the other day:

‘Colonel Brink said that he need not dilate on the strategic importance of the Cape. It had always been an important point and “I suppose that today it is even more important than ever, and, consequently we must be prepared to deal with any eventuality”.

‘The Cape was the route to the East and was probably more important, from an Imperial than from a South African point of view. The Suez Canal was always a doubtful proposition, as was shown in the last war, when it was nearly captured by the Turks.’ (Cape Times, 12 October 1934)

Or as ‘NES’ wrote in a recent article:

‘Though politically we are free to pursue our own destiny and can, theoretically, remain neutral even if other members of the Empire are involved in war, we cannot actually detach ourselves from the reality, from the laws of nature and ignore the economic bonds which bind us to the rest of the world.

‘Markets we must have to sell in and to buy from. Whatever our political opinions may be, it is obvious that our association with the rest of the greatest empire the world has ever known is our economic salvation. There are the bulk of our markets – in some instances our only markets – and, thanks to Britain’s vital interests, there lie the safe trade routes, which we could never aspire to maintain from our own resources.

‘The importance of the Cape as the gateway to the East – responsible for the founding of the original Colony – has not been eclipsed entirely by the Suez Canal. That ancient asset will still stand us in good stead in the future for urgent strategical reasons. The Suez Canal might easily be blocked in time of war and the Cape would become one of the most important strategical points in the whole world.

‘Whatever the problems, military and economic, with which we have locally to deal, our only great danger is the possible decline of British sea power through economic causes or political and financial chaos, such as that initiated by the socialistic government which precipitated the great crisis of 1931.

‘Whether Great Britain will be able to maintain her enormous expenditure of £50 million annually on the navy is of vital interest to us.

‘In explaining his recent measures for strengthening our national defence, Mr Pirow, the Minister, made it clear that he appreciated our dependence on Great Britain for our coast defence and sea-borne trade, and that South Africa’s policy would be to cooperate with the British Navy by providing reserves, to be trained by the Africa Squadron, and by strengthening our harbour defences and ensuring the safety of the naval base. Coastal air squadrons are to be provided for scouting purposes and for certain limited offensive measures against possible raiding cruisers.

‘It was last October, when he outlined the reorganisation of the Defence Force, that Mr Pirow said: “The Cabinet has decided that it is our duty to put our coastal defences on a sound footing and has agreed that over a number of years a very considerable sum of money shall be spent to achieve that sound footing. By putting coastal defences on a sound footing I mean putting them on such a footing that they can deal with anything except a large-scale naval attack.” (Cape Argus, 9 and 10 October 1934)

‘It is not possible in the case of a world war for South Africa to stand aside. That is why we should do all in our power to promote world peace.’ (Mr J.H. Hofmeyr (Minister of the Interior), Cape Argus, 9 November 1934)

South Africa is increasing her military and naval forces, not for neutrality purposes, for if she were left to defend the country by herself, she would need more than anything else such naval defences as minesweepers, submarines and hydroplanes. But she does not speak or dream of providing such weapons, just because the British Navy is sufficiently well equipped.

Needless to say, only backveld farmers can ignore the iron law of quid pro quo. Even if the question of the declaration of war should come before parliament (which is improbable), it would receive the necessary majority. For the majority of both the Fusion and Labour Party would vote for war, and the voice of the minority, Malanites and some of the Fusionists, would just remain a minority recorded in the minutes of the House of Assembly. If the minority should press for a referendum on the question, either this would be ignored, or parliament would be suspended. As Lenin says, no conscience clauses, no objections, no cry of ‘Boycott the war’, no general strikes, can stop war. Only a civil war can stop it.

Now, can we assume that the Malanites will wage a civil war on a grand scale? A rebellion like that of 1914 will have the same effect it had in 1914, and the lesson of De Wet’s fate is not yet forgotten. Can we assume that the Malanites will become a revolutionary force? Surely in such a case the duty of a revolutionary party would be to support the national revolutionary movement in its fight against imperialism. But just here is the point where we must recall the lessons of the Indian revolutionary movement and the revolution in China. The Indian Congress called off the civil disobedience campaign in India, as soon as it saw a beginning of the revolutionary struggle of the workers and peasants which threatened to outgrow the limited struggle of the Indian national bourgeoisie. Gandhi hastened to compromise with British imperialism. Still more striking was the lesson from China. The Guomindang in the famous bloc of four classes turned against the workers and peasantry as soon as the bourgeoisie saw the danger to itself of the revolutionary spirit of the masses. Although the semi-colonial position of China made the struggle against imperialism more imperative, the fact that such a struggle could only come as a beginning of a democratic revolution, made inevitable the agreement between the national bourgeoisie and the imperialist powers, drove them together in their common fear of the Chinese masses, and the counter-revolution began with the coup d’etat of Chiang-Kai-Shek.

The Malanites, not identical with the national colonial bourgeoisie of India and China, on account of racial bonds with imperialism and hatred towards the native population, are by no means lagging behind the Indian and Chinese bourgeoisie. They are realistic enough, and know well enough the nature and strength of British imperialism, to understand that a serious struggle against it requires an upheaval of the revolutionary masses which would first of all become a menace to the bourgeoisie itself. And it is especially this most reactionary part of the bourgeoisie, the Malanites, the zealous advocates of full and complete segregation, who have to fear the upheaval of the revolutionary masses. If we consider, moreover, that the Malanites constitute only part of the national bourgeoisie (‘national’ only in the sense of being opposed to British imperialism), then it becomes clear that it would be fantastic to expect a civil war or national revolutionary movement on the part of the Malanites which would keep South Africa out of the coming imperialist war.

But does the above argument imply that the Malanites will not launch an anti-war propaganda and strive for neutrality? Certainly they will not fail to do this. But their anti-war propaganda, with individualist, pacifist slogans of passive resistance, sabotage, refusal to enlist, and so on, will be in basic contradiction to the methods of a revolutionary Marxist party. And therefore we must resolutely oppose and condemn any suggestion that we should support the Malanites, or enter with them into a united front, or into a temporary agreement because they are opposing the war and we also oppose the war. Such a suggestion must be condemned for the following reasons:

1. We are against war, but we know that the only way to prevent war is by means of a revolution, not by pacifist talks, meetings, etc, not by calling for a boycott of the war, nor by referendums.
    
2. We know well enough the reactionary and treacherous nature of the Malanites, enough to exclude the possibility of their joining us in a real revolutionary fight against imperialism. If they did join with us, it would only be in order to betray us, as Chiang-Kai-Slick did in order to compromise with British imperialism. It is only while they remain in opposition that these petit-bourgeois resort to the most unscrupulous demagogy in order to heighten their importance in the eyes of the big bourgeoisie and imperialists. And therefore they are our greatest enemies.
    
3. To go into a united front with the Malanites, deceiving ourselves with the idea of outmanoeuvring them, would be the greatest possible mistake. Such an ally, who will most certainly become an enemy tomorrow, is worse than none at all:

‘It is the worst and most dangerous thing if a manoeuvre arises out of the impatient, opportunist endeavour to outstrip the development of one’s own party and to jump over the necessary stages of its maturity. To jump over necessary stages with the aid of purely superficial, false, diplomatic, combinatorial and deceitful gathering together and union of contentious organisations and elements – such experiments are always dangerous, but for the young and weak parties they are positively fatal.’[1]

4. The proletariat must always act independently, advance its own revolutionary policy against war, its own slogans and set up a proletarian united front, of all labour parties, trade unions, and other workers’ organisations, against war and against the trampling down of the few remaining democratic rights.
    
5. We are not pacifists. The transformation of imperialist war into civil war is the general strategic task of every proletarian party, to which the whole work during war should be subordinated. If the proletariat finds it beyond its power to prevent war by means of revolution – and this is the only means of preventing war the workers, together with the whole people, will be forced to enter the army and participate in the war. (see Theses 59,&bvsp;79)
    
6. Some contend that, in case war breaks out, the Malanites will uphold the defence of democratic rights, and that through a united front with them we may save our legal position and [allows us to] express our views openly through the medium or support of their newspapers. We must condemn such a policy as sheer opportunism. As Lenin says (Volume 18, p. 84):

‘Defence of class collaboration, renunciation of the idea of a social revolution and of revolutionary methods of struggle, making a fetish of bourgeois legalism, abolition of the class point of view and the class struggle out of fear of repelling the “broad masses of the population” (read here petit-bourgeois), these are undoubtedly the ideological foundations of opportunism.[2]

And further:

‘The utilisation by the bourgeoisie of the laws of war-time for gagging the proletariat makes it absolutely necessary to create illegal forms of agitation and organisation. Let the opportunists save the “legal organisations” at the price of betraying their convictions.’ (page 82)[3]

Consider the cry that is so often raised: ‘The slogan of “Turn the war into a civil war” is not applicable to South Africa, for here we have specific conditions’, etc. Is not such a cry as this a renunciation of the revolutionary methods of struggle, a badly concealed opportunism? Is not the idea of a united front with the Malanites (in one form or another) a direct betrayal of our convictions for the sake of saving our ‘legality’ and of getting articles published? Are we remembering that we should have to reckon with the censorship of the editors of Die Burger or Die Volkerblad, who are not going to turn into revolutionaries overnight? And the same applies to the ‘legal’ platform. We must not be afraid of repelling the masses by our revolutionary slogans; we must not be afraid of being driven underground and, oh! horror! isolated. We must preserve the whole tradition of revolutionary Marxism, of the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. ‘Our task consists not in swimming with the current.’ (Volume 18, p66) Remember Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht! Remember that ‘it is necessary to swim against the current’ (see our theses 72).

Now, what shall be our concrete policy and slogans?

1. We must launch an extensive anti-war campaign, carry on a tireless propaganda in lectures, meetings, special public meetings and open air meetings, exposing the military preparations and machinations of capitalism and imperialism, their alliances, the militarisation of youth, and the approaching catastrophe; unmasking the hypocrisy of our statesman and politicians and the misleading capitalist press, and explaining to the masses how the war is going to affect them, how the armament race is affecting their standard of living, how they were fooled in the last war and how they are going to be fooled again to supply the necessary cannon fodder. But we must also tell the workers that their peace sentiment cannot stop war. War is inseparable from capitalism, and therefore the abolition of war is possible only through the abolition of capitalism. And we must tell the workers that they have no country until the working class has captured power and taken the means of production from the exploiters.
    
2. We must show the masses the futility of pacifism. But in the struggle against pacifism we must always draw a distinction between it and the anti-war sentiment of large masses of the toilers, who are ready to fight against war but who do not as yet understand that the revolutionary method is the only proper way of combating war, and who therefore become a prey to pacifist swindlers, and even themselves become in their turn swindling propagandists of pacifism. The workers must be enlightened and urged to join the revolutionary united front in the struggle against war.
    
3. We must fight against the bourgeois militarisation of youth, against the increase in the ‘defence’ forces, and against a possible introduction of compulsory military service (conscription) in this country. We must fight also against the bourgeois recruiting campaign for volunteers. It must, however, be made clear to the masses that the struggle against conscription or volunteers is only of secondary importance compared with the fight against imperialist war.

And when war breaks out ...

4. In the event of a big mass movement, arising at the moment of the outbreak of war, in favour of boycott, or refusal of military service, we must organise the movement and give it a revolutionary character in the direction of revolutionary mass action. The anti-war sentiment must be utilised for the purpose of revolutionising the masses. But even then we must combat the boycott ideology and the pacifist slogans by explaining that the result of these would be that the most determined and revolutionary, that is, the most class-conscious section of the workers would remain outside the army. And thus the most vital part in the struggle against war, systematic revolutionary work in the army, at the front and in the rear, would be impossible. ‘Boycott the War’ is a stupid slogan. ‘The Communist must participate in every reactionary war’, said Lenin in 1922.[4] Our main strategy, when war is already in progress, is expressed in the slogan, ‘Turn the war into as civil war’, which signifies not a single act, but steady, systematic revolutionary mass action and propaganda in the army for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. We must advise the workers and oppressed classes to reject the refusal of military service, to reject the boycott slogans, and to avail themselves of the opportunity to learn the use of arms, to carry on revolutionary work in the army, and at the proper time to turn their weapons against the bourgeoisie.

* * *

Notes

1. Cf. L.D. Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin, London, 1974, p106.

2. Cf. V.I. Lenin, The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International, Collected Works, Vol. 21, Moscow 1977, p. 35.

3. Cf V.I. Lenin, The War and Russian Social Democracy, Collected Works , Vol. 21, op. cit., p. 33.

4. Cf. V.I. Lenin, Notes on the Tasks of Our Delegation at The Hague, Collected Works, Vol. 33, Moscow 1976, p. 448.