Smith 1 The Complexities of Proletarian Internationalism: Mexican Communism and the Communist International, 1919-1943 Research Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with research distinction in History in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nicholas M. Smith The Ohio State University April 2018 Project Advisor: Stephanie Smith, Department of History Smith 2 Introduction Out of chaos, hunger, instability, war, and imperialism, the Bolshevik Party1 of Russia overthrew the Provisional Government and declared the world’s first socialist state in November 7, 1917. From the very beginning, Bolshevik leaders, such as Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Gregory Zinoviev, recognized that they could not achieve their aims in Russia alone. The Russian Revolution was a spark; a spark the Bolsheviks hoped could ignite a fire across the entire world. As “Orthodox Marxists,”2 the Bolsheviks recognized that socialism could not be built in a country without a well-developed capitalist system. Without the material abundance produced by mass industrialization and the centralization of capital, socialism only could mean the socialization of poverty. However, the Bolsheviks, unlike their Menshevik3 rivals, recognized that a socialist revolution in Russia, led by the working class and peasantry, could break the chain of capitalism at its weakest-link: that is, in semi-feudal Russia. Therefore, the immediate task of the Bolshevik Party was to help speed up the revolutionary process throughout the world. To accomplish this task, the Bolsheviks convoked the first congress of the Third, or Communist, International in March of 1919. The Bolsheviks invited all of the anti-war socialist parties, as well as left-wing elements within the Social- Democratic parties and the Syndicalists unions. From its inception, the Communist International (Comintern) argued for the primacy of splitting the Socialist movement: to bring about proletarian revolution in Western Europe, it would be necessary to break from the elements of the 1 The Bolsheviks (literally majority) were a Marxist party in Russia which held that the revolution in Russia would be led by an alliance of the working class and the peasantry. 2 In contrast to revisionists, orthodox Marxists believed that the broad tenets of Marxist ideology still applied to early 20th century capitalism. Orthodox Marxists advocated revolutionary strategy whereas revisionists advocated reformist strategies. 3 The Mensheviks (minority) were a Marxist party in Russia which held that the revolution in Russia would be led by the capitalist class with the support of the working class and the peasantry. Smith 3 socialist movement which clung on to reformism, nationalism, and imperialism. In this vein, the Second Congress of the Communist International drafted a list of “21 Conditions” which would serve as a stringent guideline for admission.4 Included among the 21 conditions were radical planks, including systematic propaganda in the military; practical work against imperialism and colonialism; strong centralization nationally and internationally; and changes in party name to “Communist Party” to reflect the new ideological orientation. Most notably, and controversially, the bulk of the document concerns the need to split with the parties of the Second International. As point 7 reads: “It is the duty of parties wishing to belong to the Communist International to recognize the need for a complete and absolute break with reformism and “Centrist” policy, and to conduct propaganda among the party membership for that break. Without this, a consistent communist policy is impossible.”5 Before 1914, it appeared unthinkable even to the far-left of the socialist movement to break from the Second International. This international organization had recruited millions of working class people, mainly in Europe, to programmatically Marxist organizations. However, a gradual transformation had taken place in these parties over the first decade of the 20th century.6 These transformations came to a head in 1914 when the First World War broke out across Europe. The Second International had predicted the impending war and had put forward various declarations vowing to transform the imperialist war into a class war which would vanquish capitalism once and for all. But to the Left’s surprise, both the Rightists and the Centrists within the Second International lined up, in some instances enthusiastically and other instances 4 “Terms of Admission into Communist International,” Communist International, and Jane Tabrisky Degras, The Communist International, 1919-1943; Documents, Vol. 1, 1919-1922, (London: F. Cass, 1971), 168-172. 5 Ibid. 6 A reformist trend, initially established by the German Marxist, Eduard Bernstein, rejected the concept of socialist revolution and put forth slow, electoral work as the means of transforming the capitalist state into a socialist one. While this theory was roundly rejected by both the Center and the Left of the Second International, verbal denunciation masked larger changes happening within these member parties. Smith 4 begrudgingly, behind their own ruling classes. This abandonment of proletarian internationalism left the whole socialist movement in tatters. Slowly, the Left began to recompose itself, notably at the Zimmerwald conference7, where anti-war socialists met to denounce the war and formulate strategies of resistance. As Leon Trotsky later described in his autobiography, “The thread of history often breaks – then a new knot must be tied. And that is what we were doing in Zimmerwald.”8 The betrayal of the Social-Democratic parties generated significant hostility among these Left elements within the socialist movement. And out of this disillusionment came the base for the new Communist International. While ambitious and risky, the foundation of the Comintern produced the intended groundswell of revolutionary Marxist thought and organization. A number of parties immediately affiliated with the International, and after splitting the Social-Democratic parties, these parties often numbered in the tens or hundreds of thousands of members.9 Simultaneously, in contrast to the Second International, the Comintern immediately began to establish links with militants outside of Europe. Few countries were left untouched by the example of Soviet Russia. From China, Japan and Indo-China, to Cuba and the United States, working-class radicals were inspired by the first instance of the oppressed and exploited taking power into their own hands. The call of the Communist International did not fall on deaf ears in Mexico. In fact, key figures in the Mexican Revolution quickly drew links between their struggles and that of revolutionary Russia. The peasant radical Emiliano Zapata proclaimed that: “We would win much, human justice would win much, if all the peoples of our America and all the nations of old Europe understood that the cause of revolutionary Mexico and the unrepentant cause of Russia, 7 A Congress of left-wing socialists who opposed the Second International’s support of the First World War on nationalist grounds. 8 Leon Trotsky, My Life, (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), 249. 9 John Riddell, To the Masses: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 1921, (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2015), 9-14 Smith 5 are and represent the cause of humanity, the supreme interest of all oppressed people.”10 Similarly, the anarchist and leader of the Mexican Liberal Party (Partido Liberal Mexicana), Ricardo Flores Magon, described the Russian Revolution as: “…a movement that has to spark, whether those ingratiated with current system of exploitation and crime like it or not, the great world revolution that is now knocking on the gates of all the peoples; the great world revolution that will introduce important changes in the way in which human beings live with one another.”11 Another set of figures, from the Indian nationalist M.N. Roy, to the U.S. draft dodger Frank Seamen, to Mexican trade-unionists and indigenous radicals, gathered in 1919 at the National Socialist Congress with the aim of drawing a concrete link between Mexico and the nascent Russian Revolution.12 Initiated by the miniscule Mexican Socialist Party, this congress in its majority agreed with the principles of the Communist International and resolved to send a delegate to upcoming Comintern Congress. The Mexican Socialist Party affiliated officially soon thereafter, rebranding itself as the Mexican Communist Party (Partido Comunista Mexicana, PCM.)13 From these humble beginnings, a party emerged in Mexico which has played a significant role in the development of Mexico up until today. Flowing from this context, my aim is to examine the relationship between the Mexican Communist Party and the Communist International from the formation of the PCM in 1919, until the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. Throughout this period, both the PCM and the Comintern experienced profound transformations in theory and practice. Of particular note is the 10 Alfredo Martínez Verdugo, Historia del Comunismo en México, (Mexico D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 1983,) 18. 11 Ibid, 19. 12 John Patrick Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India: M.N. Roy and Comintern Policy, 1920-1939, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971,) 6. 13 Barry Carr, Marxism and Communism in Twentieth-Century Mexico, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992,) 25. Smith 6 changing nature of proletarian internationalism,