During its early days the tactics of the Moscow International were based on the idea that there would speedily be a world revolution. Soon, however, it became apparent that no such revolution was taking place. Consequently, the third session of the Central Council of the Moscow International in 1923 declared that "the attitude of the R.I.L.U. toward the Amsterdam International remains unchanged; i.e., merciless struggle as before against reformist theory and practice; also against cooperation of classes as practiced by the Amsterdam International. But we are ever ready to create a united front for fighting our class foes."[1]
In April, 1922, the Executive Committee of the three political internationals had held a meeting in Berlin and appointed a Committee of Nine for the purpose of bringing about unity between the two trade union internationals and the three political internationals. The Committee never functioned, and until 1924 the pronouncements of the Moscow International in favor of a united front had produced no tangible results.
V. The American Federation of Labor Breaks Away
Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, wrote to Jan Oudegeest, Secretary of the Amsterdam International, on March 5, 1921, severing the connections of the American Federation of Labor with the Amsterdam International.[2]
Three reasons were given for the action of the American Federation of Labor. First was that the new constitution of the Amsterdam International "abrogated the principle of complete autonomy for each national trade union Federation." The second reason was that “through the issuance of appeals and proclamations the Executive body of the International Federation had committed the Federation to a revolutionary principle to which the American Federation of Labor is and always has been uncompromisingly opposed and to which no labor movement guided by democratic ideals could give approval." The third objection related to the method of assessing dues for the support of the Amsterdam International.
The objections regarding autonomy and dues collection were disposed of by Mr. Gompers in a paragraph. "More serious than either of these questions is the conduct of the International officers during the months that have elapsed since the organiza-
10
