The Ruhr Conflict
At the Hague Peace Congress where the delegates of the Russian trade unions represented not only the Russian unions, but also the Comintern and Profintern, we openly proposed the creation of a United Front. This proposal brought forth a sharp rejection from the reformists. They wanted no United Front with us and therefore they did not like my statement, that—"We will create a United Front, with you if you wish; without you if you will stand aside; or against you if you oppose it."
If the reformists had wanted a United Front with us they would not have invited the bourgeois pacifists to the Hague. They understand that we will make no United Front with the bourgeoisie and therefore the composition was of such character that the possibility of the United Front was excluded.
The Hague Congress, as it is known, ended on the 18th of December 1922, and the 10th of January 1923, the French army occupied the Ruhr. From this moment there began a serious turn among the masses toward a United Front.
What brought about this turn? The occupation of the Ruhr demonstrated clearly the bankruptcy of the Amsterdam International. Three weeks after the Amsterdamers promised to start a strike, they not only failed to start one, but they were unable to adopt a more or less decent resolution of protest against the occupation, because the Germans were pulling one way and the Belgians and French the other. The Amsterdam International was unable to give a clear slogan in connection with that affair. The only thing it was able to say in its resolution was the necessity of turning over the Ruhr conflict to the League of Nations and to make a soft protest against the violent action of the French and Belgian military.
Some of the leaders of the Belgian trade unions and the Labor Party stated at their convention and in parliament that there was no other way out of the reparations problem except the occupation of the Ruhr. The reformists opposing the Belgian social patriots tried to prove that the occupation of the Ruhr. was not profitable, that better, more profitable methods should be used as pressure against Germany, such as, for instance, a request from the League of Nations or other international organization.
In answer to that the Belgian king's pet reformists stated that it was "not true that the occupation is not profitable: we received from Germany four and one-half billions francs and the occupations cost us only seven hundred million." Imagine yourself an International whose members are discussing the question if this operation is profitable or not, which three weeks after a promise to call a strike proposes to
