Congress of the Peoples of the East BAKU, SEPTEMBER 1920

Congress of the Peoples of the East BAKU, SEPTEMBER 1920 STENOGRAPHIC REPORT Translated and annotated by Brian Pearce NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS Published by New Park Publications Ltd., 21b Old Town, Clapham, London SW4 OJT First English edition First published in Russian by the Publishing House of the Communist International, Petrograd, 1920 Translation, notes and foreword Copyright ©New Park Publications Ltd. 1977 Set up, Printed and Bound by Trade Union Labour Distributed in the United States by: Labor Publications Inc., 540 West 29th Street, New York New York 10011 ISBN 0 902030 90 6 Printed in Great Britain by Astmoor Litho Ltd. (TU), 21-22 Arkwright Road, Astmoor, Runcorn, Cheshire Contents Foreword IX Bibliographical Note XV Summons to the Congress 1 Ceremonial joint meeting 7 First Session, September 1 21 Second Session, September 2 38 Third Session, September 4 59 Fourth Session, September 4 69 Fifth Session, September 5 89 Sixth Session, September 6 120 Seventh Session, September 7 145 Manifesto of the Congress 163 Appeal to the workers of Europe 174 Appendices I Appeal from the Netherlands 183 II Composition of the Congress 187 Explanatory Notes 189 Index 201 Foreword The Congress of the Peoples of the East held in Baku in September, 1920 holds a special place in the history of the Communist movement. It was the first attempt to appeal to the exploited and oppressed peoples in the colonial and semi-colonial countries to carry forward their revolutionary struggles under the banner of Marxism and with the support of the workers in Russia and the advanced countries of the world. That is why today, as the develop ment of the capitalist crisis brings the workers of America, Europe and Japan into revolutionary struggles alongside the colonial peoples, its lessons assume a new importance for the building of the world party. The summons to Baku was issued by the Second Congress of the Com munist International, which met in July and August in Moscow. In making this call, the Second Congress made a conscious break with the neglect of the national and colonial question by the Second International, based as it was almost exclusively on European parties. It recognised both that it was a prime duty of working class revolutionaries to support the struggle of their colonial brothers and that the colonial revolution could be a valuable ally in the overthrow of imperialism in its strongholds. Further, in 1920 the whole colonial and semi-colonial world was aflame, especially in the countries bordering the Soviet republic, so that these movements could be of direct assistance in warding off the offensive of the imperialists, notably the British, with the aim of establishing their power on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. This was the atmosphere in which the Congress met. Its delegates came from former Tsarist colonies now fighting to become Soviet republics, from Turkey and Persia, then in revolutionary ferment, and even from China, India and Japan. For some of them the journey was hazardous. The Russian historian Sorkin describes how the British imperialists tried to prevent delegates from Turkey and Persia from getting to the Congress. British naval vessels based on Constantinople patrolled the Black Sea coast, and only when stormy weather caused them to put back into port did the Turkish delegates succeed, at great risk, in getting across to Tuapse, from where they proceeded to Baku. In the Caspian British aircraft IX X CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLES OF THE EAST — presumably based in Persia — bombed the ship in which Persian delegates were crossing to Baku: two were killed and several wounded. Although of the almost 1,900 delegates who flocked to Baku some 1,200 were recorded as Communists, few of them had much experience in the Marxist movement. There was a leaven of seasoned revolutionaries, including some who had been members of the Bolshevik Party in Azerbaidzhan, Armenia and Kazakhstan since well before the 1917 revolution. Baku, the great oil capital of Russia, had been a stronghold of the party, with its large and cosmopolitan proletarian population drawn by the prospect of jobs in the petroleum industry. After joining the Revolution, the city had been temporarily lost and had only recently again been brought under Bol shevik rule when the Congress opened. It was, however, a most appropriate place in which to hold such a gathering, by virtue of its revolutionary traditions and the successful struggle to hold it for the revolution so recently concluded. Moreover, it was familiar to Turks and Persians as well as the former subject peoples of the Tsarist Empire as a great industrial and cultural centre, and, for many, as a place of work. In his concluding speech, Zinoviev spoke of the Congress as ‘a great historical event’. He pointed out that people the bourgeoisie had looked upon as draught animals were now rising in revolt and that nationalities separated by language and historic enmities were now coming to recognise their com mon interests in a struggle against imperialism. ‘Our congress has been heterogeneous, motley, in its composition,’ he pointed out, but it had been united on all fundamental questions. There is little doubt, unfortunately, that Zinoviev’s optimism was premature. The follow-up to the Congress did not fulfil its promise, nor was it possible to resolve the difficulties and differences resulting from the national and colonial question with speeches alone. This does not mean that the documents of the Congress are not worth studying. If its lessons have been neglected, that must be laid at the door of the Stalinists who, in the 1920s, threw the weight of the Communist Parties behind bourgeois nationalist movements like the Kuomintang and con demned them to disaster. It is due to Stalinism that the Baku Congress has usually been passed over with a few ‘safe’ references and no attempt has been made to reprint its proceedings or discuss its lessons. In fact this is the first time the minutes have been made available in an English translation, as part of the necessary education of the revolutionary movement about its past. There are of course other reasons why the Stalinists and their apologists do not encourage study of the Baku Congress. Its leading figures, entrusted by the Communist International with the important work of encouraging the building of sections in the underdeveloped areas and among the national minorities in the Soviet Union, Zinoviev, Radek and Bela Kun, were to be murdered by Stalin in the 1930s. But the same fate was to await countless delegates to the Baku Congress. Of those who made speeches printed in this volume, Ryskulov and Narimanov are known to have perished in Stalin’s purges after having become leading figures in the Communist Party. Also victims were two of those nominated to the Council for Action and Prop FOREWORD XI aganda — Avis (A.S. Nuridzhanian) from Armenia, Guseinov from Azer- baidzhan, as well as Kareyev and perhaps others. The purges struck deep into the republics of the nationalities, reflecting no doubt Stalin’s own past record of contempt for the peoples of these regions of which the Baku Congress was a living condemnation. At the time when the Congress was held, it should be remembered, Communist Parties properly speaking had not been established in most of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. These countries remained extremely backward; it might be said that in many respects they continued to live under medieval conditions and some of the speakers describe the extent of feudal oppression and exploitation which still remained. In most of them, too, the native bourgeoisie was extremely weak and the nationalist movement was still at its beginnings. There was, therefore, a great opportunity for Communists to place themselves at the head of the mass movement by establishing the connection between the struggle against imperialism and die need for social revolution and particularly the agrarian revolution in these lands. These principles were expressed by the speakers and in the documents approved by the Congress. The question was to carry them out in practice in the building of revolutionary parties. This was, perhaps, the greatest weakness of the Congress. Zinoviev, who dominated it, counted too much upon the Soviet example generating spon taneous support from the oppressed masses as though a few rousing speeches would be enough. He never understood or supported the theory of the permanent revolution and thus the connection between the tasks of the Communist International, and the colonial revolution. It was not enough to call for a holy war against imperialism: this would remain rhetoric if it was not followed up by the training of cadres and consistent work among the masses. It was not enough to point to the fact that members of hostile nationalities were able to work together in the enthusiasm of a great Congress, it was necessary also to combat all the sources of division and enmity. Particularly careful attention had to be given to the hold of Islam in many of the countries to which the Congress was directed and the best way to prise the masses away from their traditional alieginaces without antagonising them. The very heterogeneity of the Congress caused problems, as the reader will observe. Some of them resulted from difficulties in translation into the many languages represented, a process which consumed time and led to some impatience on the part of delegates. The present translation has been- made from the official Russian report, published in 1920. Brian Pearce, the trans lator, points out that this report contains many misprints, and there is evidence that the stenographer misheard some of what was said, not surpris ingly since there was a background of noise and movement on the part of delegates, many of whom spoke in unfamiliar accents.

Load more