USSIAROMANCE OF NEW

RUSSIAMagdele ine Marx

The impressions made bySoviet Russia on this famousFrench novelist will makeinteresting reading for anyworker. A beautiful book.

Cloth bound—$2.00

BROKEN EARTH —THERUSSIAN VILLAGE

TODAYBy Maurice Hindus

A well-known Americanjournalist and lecturer, re-visits in this book the smallRussian village of his birth.His frank narrative revealsthe Russian peasant as he istoday, growing to new stat-ure and consciousness in anew society.

Cloth bound—$2.00

A MOSCOW DIARYBy Anna Porter

A series of vivid new im-pression of life in the world'sfirst workers' government.

Cloth—$1.00

MARRIAGE LAWS OFSOVIET RUSSIA

The Soviet marital code isan innovation in laws that isof great historic movement.

$ .10

This Book Stilt Remains the

Most Complete Report on

RUSSIA TODAYThe Official Report of the Brit-ish Trade Union Delegation toSoviet Russia.

No book iii recent yearshas created such widespreaddiscussion in the labor move-ment. It is a most completereport on every phase of So-viet life today—with mapsand charts. Including a spe-cial report on the famous"Zinoviev" letter and the RedInternational of Labor Unions.

Duroflex bound—$1.25

III/ Xc

RUSSIA TURNS EASTBy Scott Nearing

A brief account of whatRussia is doing in Asia.

$ .10

GLIMPSES OFTHE SOVIET REPUBILC

By Scott NearingA bird's-e.ve view of Rus-

sia in impressions of the au-thor on his recent visit.

$ .10

EDUCATION INSOVIET RUSSIA

Scott NearingA t inu-lmnd account o f

aims and methods of educa-tion in the Soviet republics.

Cloth bound—$1.50Paper-— .50

COMMERCIAL HAND-BOOK OF THE U. S. S. R.

A new brief i-ompendiuniof information on the So-viet Union. Interesting and. i f value for all purposes.

$ .25

THE NEW THEATERAND CINEMA Or SOVIETRUSSIA By Huntley Carter

.Mr. Carter, the eminent author-ity, presents here a veritable ency-clopedia of the Russian theater to-day. 8 vo. 300 pp., containing 68half-tones and 17 wood cuts. $6.00

FLYING OSIP -Stories ofNew Russia.

Eleven short stories writtensince the Revolution, revealing thenew literary trends and present-ing the work of the most significantof the new Russian writers.

Cloth bound—$2.50Paper— 1.50

MY FLIGHTFROM SIBERIA By Leon Trotsky

A new edition, attractively board-bound, of the famous story by oneof Russia's most brilliant writers.

$ .50

THE DAILY WORKERPUBLISHING CO.

1113 W. Washington Blvd.CHICAGO, ILL.

LENIN

LENIN—The Great Strategist,By A. Losovsky—$ .15

LENIN, LIEBKNECHT, LUXEM-BURG, by Max Schachtman $ .15

LENIN ON CO-OPERATIVES$ .05

LENIN ON TRADE UNIONS,By A. Losovsky $ .15

LENIN ON ORGANIZATION,Cloth $1.50

THEORY AND PRACTICE OFLENINISM I. Stalin

A book sure to remain a classicof Communist literature. Writtenby a close co-worker of Lenin—thepresent secretary of the RussianCommunist Party. $ .35

MOHIUIY

Nine Years of Revolution in Russia

NOVEMBER, 1926 25 CENTS

COMMUNISMIn Theory and Practice

LENIN ON ORGANIZATION

Tin speeches? andwritings of a great

an the mostbut most nec-

I'xxriri/ problems ofthe workhiy class. Axplaidid icork in its-first American- publi-cation. Cloth S1.50

State and RevolutionBy LENIN

A Marxian analysis yfHi*-- State and a lesson inthe revolutionary neces-sity of the establishmentof the "Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat."

Duroflex, durable bind-ing. 25 Cents.The Theory and Prac-

tice of LeninismBy I. STALIN

An important work onCommunist theory andpractice during the pe-riod that Lenin lived andled—the period of Capi-talist Imperialism.Duroflex bound, 35 Cents.The Menace of Oppor.

tunismBy MAX BEDACHT.Clarity of principle is

essential to correct poli-'•iesj. This booklet Is asplendid contribution toCommunist clarity.

15 Cents.

W h y E v e r y WorkerShould Become a

CommunistBy C. E. RUTHENBERGA n attractive, simple

exposition of Communistpractice and policies writ-ten by the national exe-cutive secretary of theW o r k e rs (Communist)Party. — illustrated b yleading artists. 5 Cents.

TheCommunist ManifestoBy KARL MARX ANDFREDERICK ENGELSThe first and greatest

statement of the positionof Communism in rela-tion to the working classand the decaying capi-talist system.Cloth, 60 Cents. Paper,10 Cents.Prinicples of Commu-

nismBy FREDERICK EN-

GELS—Translation byMAX BEDACHT

The original draft ofthe Communist Manifestowith most valuable andinteresting h i s t o r i calnotes. 10 Cents.A. B. C. of Communism

By BUCHARIN ANDPREOBRAZHENSKYA gem of Communist

teachings. A completeand simple explanationof Communism makingan invaluable text-book.

50 Cents.Party Organization

With IntroductionBy JAY LOVESTONELetter of the Commu-

nist Intera.tional, Consti-t u t i o n, organizationcharts, etc. of the Amer-ican movement organ-ized in the Workers(Communist) Partv.

15 Cents.

The 4th NationalConvention of theWorkers (Commu-nist) Party, Held in

Chicago. 1925.A record of progress

of the American Com-munist movement, inresolutions and dec-larations—witli con-stitution. A eotnperi -dium of informationon all phases of themovement. 50 Cents.

The l-\ii'oritc Restaurant of Radicals andTheir Friends

"JOHN'S"Italian Dishes a Specialty

302 E. 12th STREET, BROOKLYN BRANCH.NEW YORK CITY 7 Willoughby St.

Popular For Its Good Food, ReasonablePrices and Interesting Companionship- — Private Dining Room for Parties —

John Pucciatti, Prop. Phone Stuyvesant 3816

GOOD BOOKSiSWORKERS

THE ONLY C H I C A G O STOREWHERE YOU WILL FIND

A L L LABOR PUBLICATIONS,FOREIGN AND AMERICAN, ANDA L L C O M M U N I S T PUBLI-CATIONS SURELY.

F A I R YT A L E S

FOR WORKERS' CHILDRENBy HERMINA ZUR MUHLEN.

With over twenty blackand white illustrationsand four color plates by

LYDIA GIBSON.

75 CentsDurofiex Covers

$1.25Cloth Bound

THE DAILY WORKER PUB. CO.

The Weekly We Needed

WEEKLY was wanted. A popular educa-tional weekly at a low rate to reach thoseworkers who were not yet in the ranks ofmilitant labor.

The New Magazine of the Daily Workerproved to be just what was needed. Continuousrequests came in for separate subscriptions andbundle orders. The demand was so strong itcreated: THE SUNDAY WORKER.

Here is the medium to give to workers inthe shop, trade union and working class neigh-borhood to bring them to the Daily Worker andinto the ranks of revolutionary Labor.

The following writers and artists have en-thusiastically joined the staff of contributors toproduce the best journal of Labor features everissued:

You can get a bundleof 10 copies for 5weeks

for $1.00

BUNDLE RATES

10 for 20 cents25 for 45 cents50 for 85 cents

100or over at $1.60

a hundred.

(No order filled unlesspaid in advance)

WRITERS:

Scott NearingHenri BarbusseMichael GoldV. F. CalvertonJim WatersA. W. CalhounSolon De LeonRose Pastor Stokes

ARTISTS:

Robert MinorFred EllisLydia GibsonA. JergerVoseK. A. SuvantoO'Zim

And Many Others.

$1.00 .50a year six months

4 subs for

20 weeks

This special offer will allow you to

send the Sunday Worker to four

workers you know. PUT THEM

ON THIS BLANK.

Name

Street

City

Name

Street

City

Name

Street

City ....

Name

Street

City ...

L E N I N

PE WORKERS MONTHLYOfficial Organ WORKERS COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA

MAX BEDACHT, Editor.

Single copies, twenty-flve cents—yearly subscriptions, two dollars; foreign, two fifty. Published monthly by the DailyWorker Publishing Company, '"13 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, 111. Entered as Second Class Matter November 8,1924, at the postofflce of Chicago, Illinois, under the act of March 3, 1879.

VOL. V. NOVEMBER, 1926 No. 13.

What is the Election About?By C. E. Ruthenberg

TTTE will elect this year the whole membership of the** House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate,

and the governors and state legislatures of a large num-ber of states. With the one exception of the State ofMinnesota the election will decide whether the candi-dates of the Republican Party or those of the DemocraticParty shall be elected to ofQce and hold the politicalpower which goes with these offices.

Fifty million voters will beasked to go to the ballot box-es and cast their votes. Toinduce them to give theirsupport to candidates of oneor the other of the two ma-jor parties thousands ofspeeches will be made, tensof thousands of newspaperarticles will be written, mil-lions of leaflets and pam-phlets will be distributed,and tens of millions of dol-lars "will be expended.

With such an expenditureof vocal power, paper anddollars one would expect tofind a burning issue, or is-sues, upon which the Repub-lican and Democratic Partyare divided and which thevoters will decide 'by electingthe candidates of one or theother party. Are there suchissues which divide the twoold parties? Are there twoprograms, respectively sup-ported by the Republicanand Democratic Party?

The Issue of "Prosperity."President Coolidge and his spokesmen have announc-

ed that the big issue is "prosperity." "Prosperity" is ageneralization which has been used 'before in our elec-tions, particularly as a bait for the workers. It gets usdown to the economic basis of politics—that is, thatin the elections are involved struggles for political pow-

er and that the control of political power is a mightyweapon in advancing the class or group interests of thevarious economic groupings in our country.

In order to make a case for the Republican Party asthe beneficent creator of "prosperity," not for one classor group, but for the country as a whole, it would be es-sential that the Republican Party present the programof economic measures thru which this "prosperity" was

brought into existence and isbeing maintained. No suchprogram is being presented tothe voters for their support.Neither does the DemocraticParty present such a pro-gram. With the exception ofslight differences of view-point as to how high the tar-iff should be on certain goodsimported into this country,which difference has not as-sumed such importance inthis election that it can besaid that this is the issue onwhich the battle is beingfought, there are no oppos-ing programs of economicpolicy before the electors.

We know, too, that thequestion of general "pros-perity"—that is an economicsituation in which the ma-chinery of production isworking somewhere near tocapacity and the workers,with the exception of thefew million who are unem-

ployed even in the best times, have the opportunity towork and earn such a living as capitalism grants them,is not dependent upon whether the Republican or Demo-cratic Party is in power and upon their respective eco-nomic policies. The worst ecenomic crisis of the lastdecade, with its "hard times" for the workers, tookiplace in 1921, under the Republican Harding adminis-tration. The depression of 1914, which threw millions

•—McCutcheon in the Chicago Tribune

580 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 581

of workers out of jobs, took place under the Democratic Harrold. In New York state James W. Wadsworth, theWilson administration. The Roosevelt, Republican ad-ministration of 1907 had its panic and 1893 found theCleveland Democratic administration in power

The question whether production goes on at a nor-mal pace or the factories are working part time or areclosed is determined by more fundamental economicfactors that the programs of the Republican or Demo-cratic Party. The policies enacted into law by theseparties does determine whether one group within thecapitalist class or another shall be in a more favorableposition to make profits in time of "prosperity" or dur-ing "hard times," but not the question whether a par-ticular period shall 'be a period of "prosperity" or of"hard times." That is determined by deeper economicfactors within the capitalistsystem within this countryand in the world at large.

Therefore, President Coo-lidge and the RepublicanParty's effort to make "pros-perity" the issue must :beconsidered as an attempt tocapitalize something which•,he Republican Party can noaiore claim as its achieve-ment than the DemocraticParty could claim the war-time prosperity as somethingwhich it created.

If we reject "prosperity"as the possible basic issue onwhich the election fight isbeing carried on by the Re-publican a n d DemocraticParty, because neither offersan economic program whichcan be considered as a deci-sive factor in determiningwhether industry shall oper-ate at capacity or near ca-pacity or shall be reducedto fifty or sixty per cent ofcapacity, and turn to the oth-er questions which are beingraised, we will find that there is no division along party•lines on these issues.

The World Court Issue.

Take the Question of .international ^xjhcies as involvedin the attitude toward ,,'the war debts and t£e WorldCourt. The votes on these questions in the Congresscut across party lines. There was a majority in theSenate made up of .Repiiblicsn and Democrats whovoted for our entrs into the jWoclcl.-Coo1", »ud a minroitymade up of Republicans and Democrats who votedagainst. The ratification of the various agreements forthe payment of the war debts had majority and minoritysimilarly made up for and against.

In the election campaign we find the Republican can-didate for Senator in Illinois, Frank L. Smith, determin-edly opposing affiliation with the World Court, as is theRepublican candidate for Senator in Oklahoma, J. W.

candidate for United States Senate, voted for entry intothe World Court, as did Senator Butler, the candidatefor U. S. Senate in Massachusetts. In New York statethe Robert W. Wagner, the Democratic candidate forUnited States Senate, together with Governor "Al"Smith, are for the World Court, while in Illinois theDemocratic candidate for the United States Senate,George E. Brennan, is opposed to our entry into theWorld Court. The same division runs through thetwenty-eight states which will elect United States Sena-tors this year. There are Republican and Democraticcandidates on both sides of the question.

The struggle over our entry into the World Court isa fight between finance capital as represented by the in-

ternational banking housesand industrial capital. Theinternation-al bankers wantthe United States in theWorld Court as an instru-ment to protect their inter-national investments. Thecapitalists who are primarilyinterested in industrial pro-duction here are opposed tothe World Court. Their in-terests are not involved andhence they are opposed to"European entanglements."

The fact that the Republi-can and Democratic Partyare both divided on thisquestion in this election isthe clearest sort of evidencethat both parties are dom-inated by the capitalists andthat there are representa-tives of both groups of capi-talists involved in this fightin each of these parties.Farm Relief and Prohibition

If we turn to the questionof relief for the farmers, orprohibition, both of whichare major issues of the elec-

tion campaign, we find the same anomalous situation.There are states where the Republican candidates arefor farm relief as represented by the McNary-Haugeubill, notably Brookhart in Iowa, and other states wherethe Republicans are opposed. The Democrats are simi-larly divided. We have Republican "dry" candidates andRepublican "wet" candidates, and Democrat "dry" can-didates and Democratic "wet" candidates.

The McNary-Haugen bill, while supported by themasses of exploited farmers seeking relief from unbear-able conditions, is essentially a petty bourgeoisie attackupon big capital. The 18th amendment and VolsteadAct, had behind them the big capitalists who wantedmore efficient workers. Unquestionably there are amongthe supporters of these measures earnest opponents, ofthe use of alcohol because of the evils resulting there-from, who believe that these evils can be eliminated byprohibition, but the main driving force came from the

—McCutcheon in the Chicago Tribune.

capitalists intent upon serving their own economic inter-ests. The exposure of the source of the Anti^SaloonLeague funds in the Pennsylvania "slush fund" investi-gation gave proof of that.

No Issues on Party Lines.

Thus we find that on all the major issues in this elec-tion there is no division on party lines between Republi-cans and Democrats. There are Republican and Demo-crats on both sides of each question. There are withinthe Republican Party finance capitalists, industrial capi-talists and petty bourgeoisie. The same is true of theDemocratic Party. These groups struggle for control ofthe party with varying results and the consequencesthat in different states these partise have different pol-icies.

The Chicago Tribune brings out this situation clearlyin commenting on the fact that President Coolidge de-cided not to take part in the congressional campaign.It declares that in eighteen out of twenty-eight states•the president could not consistently endorse the candi-dates for United States Senate, because they are oppos-ed to his policies. Explaining this situation, it 'says:

"Our party system divides the nation into two orat most three large groupings. Within these group-ings there must be many shades of opinion. Thereare radical and conservative Democrats and Republi-cans. Some Democrats belong to the urban wing ofthe party and some to the agrarian wing, and thesame division runs thru the Republican Party. Ourpolitical theory permits a man to run as a Republi-can tho he has little in common with many other Re-publicans. The differences are ironed out within theparty after election rather than before."

The last sentence of this quotation is a way of sayingthat the elections do not mean anything. After the elec-tion all those elected get their orders from the dominantcapitalists and carry them out.

The Tribune, however, has missed one factor in thesituation. That is the primary election. Unquestionably,one of the conditions which has created the situation ofwhich we have an example in this election campaign,that the Republican and Democratic Party are not di-vided on issues representing the group economic inter-ests of section of the capitalist class and the pettybourgeoisie, is the fact that these issues are fought outin the primary election. The primary election makespossible the existence of what are really parties withinthe two old parties. This is clearly illustrated in thefarm bloc in congress. The members of this bloc succeed-ed in winning primary nominations from the Republicanand Democratic parties, but in congress these Republi-cans and Democrats combine on the basis of the eco-nomic interests they represent and form a bloc.

Wfthout the primary law it is questionable whetherthe Republican and Democratic Parties, as now constitut-ed, would hold together. The clashing economic group-

ings within them would lead to splits and the formationof new parties. With the sharpening of the strugglebetween these groups this will become inevitable inspite of the primary. Already in Illinois and New Yorkthere are "independent" candidates for the U. S. Senate.

The Workers and the Elections.

The issues on which the two old .parties are fightingin this election campaign and the economic groups be-hind these issues, Illustrates glaringly how little partthe workers of this, country have in the political strug-gles of the country. The masses of workers still divideon issues over which the groups within the capitalistparties fight, but do not unite in support of an economicprogram which represents their class interests as againstthe interests of all the groups within the capitalistparties.

The election campaign, however, again shows a for-ward movement toward a class party of workers. TheWorkers (Communis t ) Party raised the slogan of a Unit-ed Labor Ticket early in the campaign. In a number of•states and localities there are again movements to unitethe workers thru the formation of a labor party, or inthe agricultural states a farmer-labor party thru alliancewith the farmers, upon a program representing the in-terests of these two exploited classes.

In Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana and Washing-ton the farmer-labor parties are challenging the rule ofthe two capitalist parties. In Minnesota the petty bour-geoisie politicians who have played a big role in theFarmer-Labor Party heretofore are leading a movementback to the Democratic Party, which is likely to resultin clearing the farmer-labor party of these elements andin helping to hasten its development as a ;party repre-senting the class interests of the workers and farmers.

In Ohio a Farmer-Labor Party has been organized inAllen County and a Labor Party in Southeastern Ohio.In Massachusetts a committee for the formation of aLabor Party was established by a convention of tradeunion delegates and representatives of the Workers(Communist) Party and Socialist Party. In Buffalo themovement for the labor party has taken new life. Inupper Michigan Farmer-Labor parties have been formedin two counties. In Pennsylvania the existing LaborParty leaders sold out first to the Republican and thento the Democratic machine, but in tliree counties of thewestern section of the state new movements for theformation of a party that will fight on class lines havedeveloped.

The crystalization of this movement on a nation-widescale is the task before the working class movement. Un-til this movement results in the formation of a LaborParty, which will ally itself with the farmers in a strug-gle against capitalist parties, labor's part in the electionwill remain that of the tail to the kite of the capitalistparties, fighting the battles of various capitalist groupsand petty -bourgeoisie, but not fighting the battles ofthe workers against the capitalists.

582 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Nine Years of RevolutionBy Max Bedacht

rpHE Russian workers' revolution is nine years oldthis month. These nine years represent years of

life, of struggle, of sacrifice and, finally, of victory andof achievements.

The first news of the victory of the Russian prole-tariat was greeted with a contemptuous smile by inter-national capitalism. "It is a mere adventure," they de-clared. And the short life of the Bolshevik triumphswere to prove their adventurous character.

The bourgeoisie was serious in Its predictions. It be-lieved in them. They were not merely children of goodwishes. The bourgeois conviction of their own fitnessfor political rulership is only outdone by their parallelconviction that the workers are thoroughly unfit torule. How could these "hands" whom they orderedaround in their shops and factories dare reach out forthe power of government? What preposterous aspira-tions! How could these "hands" challenge the rightand the qualification of the bourgeoisie to govern theworld? The revolution must fail because it is the God-ordained prerogative of the bourgeoisie to rule and it isthe eternal duty of the workers to obey.

But the prerogatives of the bourgeoisie did not seemto be a strong enough power to defeat the Bolsheviks.So the bourgeoisie decided to fight. While it is a strongbeliever in God and his supreme rulership over the uni-verse, yet it refused to rely upon God to get back poli-tical power for its Russian brethren. Instead of havingGod's will done, it set up as its slogan the maxim ofthe cheating gamblers: "Corrigez la fortune."

The capitalists of the United States were representedin those days by Woodrow Wilson of 14-point fame. Hewas capitalist hypocrisy personified. While the swordof the imperialist dictatorship of the American bour-geoisie was dripping with the blood of the world war,the mouth of its spokesman was dripping with sancti-monious words about righteousness, freedom, self-deter-mination, and open and above-board diplomacy. Butwhen the Bolsheviks played open diplomacy and ex-posed the secret pacts of the capitalist nations, thesanctimonious sermons for open diplomacy turned intohowling accusations of "treason against Allies" hurledagainst the practice of open diplomacy. And -when theRussian people determined for themselves that it wouldno longer stand for the bloody regime of a murderousczar or of exploiting capitalism, then the preacher ofsell-determination wished perdition down upon the headsof the "self-determiners."

In 1905, the Russian exploited and oppressed masseswarned international capitalism thru the mouth of the

Bolsheviks that any monies lent to the czar to enablehim to continue his rule of blood and gallows 'wouldnot be paid back by the people of Russia after the over-throw of the czar. The money lenders did not listen.First, because their money needed a market; second,a blood-czar needed the money badly and, therefore,could be forced to accept terms very profitable to thelenders; and, third, because the money lenders were ofthe class of the czar. They, like him, were Godordain-ed to rule. They laughed at the idea of the masses eversucceeding in taking power.

However, in November, 1917, the masses did takeover the power. And promptly they declared, againthru the mouth of the Bolsheviks, that the debts con-tracted by the czar were not contracted in the nameand interest of the Russian people, but for the purposeof continuing the oppression of the Russian people un-der the iron heel of czarism and 'capitalism. Therefore,these debts were repudiated.

Then our preacher of righteousness threw off com-pletely his mask of saintliness. The Russian peoplewere declared outside of the pale of civilized nations.A civilized nation, without the slightest shudder, canwatch the life of its children ground into profits bychild-exploiting capitalists. It can, without developingmoral indignation, see the health and life of its work-ing class women and mothers worn away in the dailygrind of underpaid factory -work. It can see its sonsslaughtered on the battle fields by the million for theprofits of its Morgans, its Stinneses, its Loucheurs, with-out even permiting a protest against such slaughter. Allof these things are part of the daily life of a "civilized"nation. But when a people rises, when it declares thatthe debts on its shoulders were contracted to forge thechains which it had just thrown off and that, therefore,it would refuse to pay these debts, then civilization isoutraged. Such a people is declared outside of the paleof civilized nations.

Capitalism attempted to revive the papal interdict ofold; it put its curse upon a whole nation. But capital-ism knew, and, if it did not know, it soon learned, that,unlike Emperor Henry V., the Russian people would notgo to Canossa. Therefore, it did not rely on its inter-dict but it mobilized more substantial forces againstthe Russian revolution. The "diplomatic" representa-tives of the "civilized" nations who were located inRussia organized and paid for the bombing of bridges,railroads, building's, etc. They armed and organizedmercenaries and began a war of extermination againstrevolutionary Russia. Civilization determined to gloryin its most legitimate, most saintly and most glorious

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

deeds of war, and in its train of murder, rape and de-struction against the Russian people.

Thus it came about that the apostle of open diplom-acy, Woodroiv Wilson, entered into a secret pact withthe capitalist governments of England, France, Japan,etc., to land troops in Russia. Thus it came about thatthe saintly defender of the democratic constitution ofthe United States, Woodrow Wilson, organized and car-ried on war against the people of Russia in violationof the constitution which reserves for congress the rightto declare war.

The capitalist saints of democracy tried to blind theworld to their dastardly attacks on revolutionary Rus-sia by hypocritical propaganda. They, who dreaded andcondemned the unity of the Russian people in arms, de-manded a proof of this unity at a ballot box. At home,where they strangled every manifestation of democ-racy, our capitalists maintained their halo of "defend-ers of democracy" by carrying on a war against "un-democratic Bolshevik Russia." And in Russia wherethey supported every agency of the overthrown auto-cracy, they maintained their reputation as "defenders ofdemocracy" on the strength of the myth of a flourishingdemocracy at home. The presence of a rule of democ-racy was declared sacred everywhere—except where the"defenders of democracy" and their rule were -presentthemselves.

World capitalism predicted the early downfall of Bol-shevist rule in Russia. But the gods seemed to con-spire against their prophets. That is why the prophetsraised armies to proceed with fire and sword, attempt-ing to make good their prophecies.

But the imperialist crusaders for democracy weretaught a lesson. They saw their unity of capitalism, ofcounter-revolution, confronted by the unity of the Rus-sian people for their revolution. The Russian peoplemay not have voted together fop their revolution; but

.they fough t together for it; they hungered together forit; they suffered cold and privation together for it; andthey conquered together for it. On the roche de broncof the revolutionary unity of the Russian people, thecounter-revolutionary ship of allied international capi-talism was smashed to pieces; the revolution emergedvictorious.

International capitalism with its mercenaries of de-mocratic and social-democratic statesmen, writers anddemagogues, was not satisfied with this outcome. Ithad lost its war of arms. So it started a war of vilifi-cation and lies. The revolutionary people of Russiahad bled, had hungered and suffered; but internationalcapitalism shouted about the sufferings of the counter-revolutionists. International capital had attacked therevolution with the terror of poison, dagger, dynamiteand gun; but it shrieked murder because it had beenanswered with the red terror. International capitalismand, above all, American capitalism suppresses everymanifestation of democracy at home. Free speech ispunished with penitentiary or even lynching, free pressis strangled to death by a postoffice censorship; "as-

583

sembling with" is declared a crime, punishable by yearsof Imprisonment. But these dictators at home howl fordemocracy—in Russia.

But all of this propaganda was not considered sufficient.The capitalists after years of blockade from withoutand systematic sabotage from within Russia had suc-ceeded in reducing the productive power of the coun-try to almost zero. But they pointed to their handi-work as an example of the failure of a workers' govern-ment. Evidence against the Soviet Republic was manu-factured. Counterfeiting laboratories were establishedfor this purpose in Riga, in Berlin, in Bucharest, etc.From the infamous Sisson documents to the equally no-torious Zinoviev letter there is one continuous line oflies and falsifications. No pool of lies was too deep ortoo oderiferous for international capitalism to wade inand pump out a flood of calumnies against the workers'republic of Russia.

However, all of this was of no avail. The revolutionlived and was victorious. It did more than live. Whilemeeting the onslaught of international capitalism on allfields, while fighting and destroying the old order andits remnants, it also carried on an uninterrupted effortof constructing a new society. The Communist recon-struction .was undertaken by the revolutionary work-ers of Russia with the same vigor, the same devotion,and the same success as the struggle against the oldorder.

As a result, on its ninth anniversary the Russian revo-lution can look back upon nine years of unprecedentedachievements. All palaver of the "defenders of de-mocracy" cannot obscure the working class democracyestablished by the Russian revolution. The capitalistshave no reason to like this democracy, to be sure. Theworkers have all reasons to love it. The rule of thecapitalist class has established the principle that everyone who has is a good citizen. The proletarian rulein Russia, on the other hand, enforces the principlethat everyone who does is a good citizen. Under capi-talist democracy the power belongs to the Morgans, Do-henys and Insulls who can buy laws and favors fromthe government by fat campaign contributions and bycorrupting officials. Under the proletarian dictatorshipin Russia the power belongs to the workers who keepsociety going by their toil.

The other day, the son of the millionaire presidentof Sears, Roebuck Company declared, upon his returnfrom Russia, that it had depressed him deeply to seehow the youth of Russia is being inoculated so early inlife with the poison of Marxism. Really, the defenseof democracy produces curious flowers. Democracy ispresumably self-government of the people. But self-government presupposes a people fully educated to theirneeds, their problems, and the methods of solution oftheir problems thru government. Capitalist state edu-cation does not provide this knowledge. On the con-trary, it exerts all efforts to withhold it from its youth.And if a teacher here and there or now and then daresto let his better judgment override the capitalist dictator-

584

ship in education his teacher's certificate is not worththe paper it is written on.

The proletarian dictatorship in Russia accepts theprinciple that self-government (democracy) of the work-ers is possible only with a .politically well-educated work-ing class. Therefore, it provides this education. Itbuilds the solid foundation of self-government by teach-ing its youth the elements of political science. But thevery moment that a capitalist "defender of democracy"comes in contact with such a real measure of democ-racy, he becomes deeply depressed and sighs: ''Oh God!oh God! Where is this world going to, anyhow?"

But then our own capitalist democracy has all rea-sons to complain of the proletarian democracy in Rus-sia. When one of our own thieving "defenders of de-mocracy" is caught with his loot a la Harry Daughertyhe merely raises the cry: "Down with the reds!" "Norecognition of the Russian dictatorship!":—and Insteadof being sent to the penitentiary he is hailed as a pillarof constitutional government and is raised to the posi-tion of a minister of state. If we contrast this with therough treatment a corrupt official receives at the handsof the proletarian democracy in Russia we can appre-ciate the "deep depression" our "democratic" capitalistsfeel.

William Green, president of the American Federationof Labor, after listening to a speech by Mr. SherwoodEddy exposing the "false and second-handed propagan-da" against the Soviet Union, declared: "We are gladto have some of our impressions about dictatorship inRussia confirmed." All Mr. Green could hear out ofMr. Eddy's speech was that the liberties of speech andpress are abridged in Russia. And so they are, indeed.Just like in Mr. Green's own United States. Yet, Mr.Green's regrets do him no honor. There are in theprisons of the United States, and at the very doors ofthese prisons about to be pushed in, scores of men andwomen whose only crime is that they took seriouslythe constitution and that they exercised the right offree speech, free press, free assemblage, or free associa-tion. When and where has Mr. Green ever raised hisvoice against these abridgements of constitutional rightsin America? When and where has he ever condemnedthe criminal syndicalist laws? When and where has hejoined in a move to free the victims of the infamousBusick injunction in California? When and where hasMr. Green ever voiced his indiignation against the com-plete abolition of all constitutional rights of the work-ing Negro masses in the United States?

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Yes, the workers' democracy in Russia does abridgethe rights of free speech, press, etc. And on its ninthanniversary, the Soviet Union can be as proud of thisachievement as of any of its accomplishments in thefield of economic reconstruction. The right of freespeech is the right of the ruling class and of the rulingclass only. It is the right of the capitalist class inAmerica. It is the right of the working class in Rus-sia. Capitalist America prevents or punishes speechagainst capitalism. And Mr. Green acquiesces in thisabridgement of freedom. Proletarian Russia preventsand punishes speech against the workers' rule. Andwe glory in this abridgement of freedom. It is anachivement of revolution. The revolution has freed thetongues of those hitherto oppressed and has tied thetongues of their former oppressors. After centuries ofgrave-yard silence in Russia, the revolution has wonfor the millions of toilers the right to be heard. AHthe cries of the Morgans and the Greens about the ab-sence of liberties in the Soviet Union are answered bythe experiences of the American workers in democraticUnited States. Every injunction against strikers, everypolice club against pickets, every prison sentence againstclass war fighters shouts this experience with unmis-takeable clearness into the ears of the American pro-letariat:

"Workers! You can have no freedom until youfight for it. But your right to be free means the endof the right of your capitalist masters to coin moneyout of you. With the attainment of your freedomwill begin the wailings of your present day mastersagainst the abridgement of their freedom. Workers!You must choose! What shall it be? The capital-ists' freedom and your continued enslavement—oryour freedom and the capitalists' suppression?"

Every breath of the Russian revolution is a breath oflife of the working class of the world. Every step for-ward of the Russian revolution is a victory for theworking class of the world. Every experience of theRussian revolution is a lesson to the working class ofthe world. And the nine years of life of the Russianrevolution are a monument to the future hopes and as-pirations of the working class of the world.

The Russian revolution lived nine years. It will liveto the complete accomplishment of its task. It will liveunder the vigilance of the Russian workers and of theworkers of the world. It will live as the guide of theworkers of the world. It will live as the fore-runner andthe example of a revolution of the working class of theworld.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 585

American Dox Quixotes and theirWindmills

By Ellis Peterson(Concluded from last issue.)

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

T^IOR years the Socialist Labor Party has been attackingthe theory of Marx and Lenin about the dictatorship

of the proletariat. In this pamphlet of the Socialist La-bor Party we find the following statement on the ques-tion of the dictatorship of the proletariat:

" Imagine what it means to come to America andurge upon the American working class the need ofestabl ishing a dictatorship of the proletariat! Toadvocate such a t h ing takes either a consummateand hopeless fool or a des ign ing knave; no sanerevolutionary Socialist can give that sort of t h i n gcountenance for the fract ion of a second."The teacher and the leader of the Socialist Labor

Party, Daniel De Leon, in 1905 in his address for theI. W. W. convention, said that the political organizationof the working class hfed to be dissolved the minute afterits triumph, and his followers have time and again statedthat the political state will disappear at the momentwhen the working class seizes power. But later De Leonmade a clear statement in favor of the dictatorship of theproletariat. That was in an article in the Daily People.March 17, 1907. In a letter to Bracke. which De Leonquoted, Marx had said:

"Between the capitalist and the Communis t sys-tem of society there is a period of revolut ionarytransformation of the one into the other. This cor-responds to a pol i t ical t ransi t ion period, the stateinst i tut ion of which cannot be any th ing else than therevolut ionary dictatorship of the proletariat."We very much regret that we have found no Chicago

library with a copy of the Daily People at hand. We aretherefore compelled to use the Swedish text from theSwedish Socialist Labor Party paper "Arbetaren," pub-lished in New York, where this article of De Leon wasprinted twice, and likewise the Swedish paper, "Folket,"where it was published March 12, 1921. We quote fromthe Socialist Labor Parity paper, Arbetaren:

"Marx visar Mart, att proletariatet maste organi-sera siy politiskt, sa att det kan kontrollera over-g&ngsstaten och infora socialismen."Retranslated:

"Marx clearly shows (proves) that the proletariatmust organize politically, so that it can control thetransition state and introduce socialism."

So it seems that even De Leon is one of those "con-summate and hopeless fools" and "designing knaves,"who advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Heshares this honor humbly with Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Let us now, for the benefit of the "only Marxian organi-zation," quote the Marxist Engels, from his foreword toMarx's book, "The Civil War in France," on the ParisCommune:

"The German petty bourgeois (read the AmericanSocialist Labor Party—EP.) has again been soundlyterrified by the words: The Dictatorship of the Pro-letariat. Well, gentlemen, if you wish to know, whatthis dictatorship looks l ike, look at the Paris Com-mune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat."These words are missing in the American edition of

Marx's book. The American petty bourgeois socialistwas terrified by Engels "advocating such a thing" andleft it out. And so in the files of the Socialist LaborParty we will find among the knaves, etc., even oldEngels! If more quotations are wanted on this matter,we advise the Socialist Larty Party to turn to Marx',Engels' and Lenin's writings. There are plenty of'them.

The Russian Revolution.

The Socialist Labor Party "recognized" the Russianrevolution. Both de facto and de jure. The bolshevikrevolution is too hard a fact to be simply denied out ofexistence. But even on this question the Socialist LaborParty shows a great deal of hypocrisy. The Russianrevolution as a fact is recognized, alas—a "prematurerevolution"—but successful anyhow! If the bolshevikshad been real Marxians they would have waited and"made" no revolution before the industrially more devel-oped America had had its "peaceful revolution" made bythe Socialist Labor Party. But the bolsheviks, beingno "real Marxians," couldn't wait—and so the Russianrevolution came "prematurely" and against the theoriesof the Socialist Labor Party. That's an outrage—andhere we find the reason for the howling of the SocialistLabor Party.

All the lessons of the great Russian revolution, allits experiences for labor movements of other countries,all the international results and gains of this tremendousstruggle of the Russian workers and peasants are asnothing to the Socialist Labor Party. They are not inaccordance with the dogmas of the Socialist Labor Party.And consequently Leninism and modern Communism arefought to the utmost. The greatest international achieve-ment of the Russian revolution, embodied in the Com-munist International, are viciously attacked. And theRussian party, the leader of this revolution, is mostpositively misunderstood by the Socialist Labor Party.All the lies of the bourgeois press about the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union are eagerly reprinted and dis-tributed by the Socialist Labor Party.

586

The Trotsky debate and the present factional fighthave been purposely interpreted in a pure counter-revo-lutionary sense, with no understanding of the great tasksthat face the leaders of such a tremendous social up-heaval and with no understanding of the ideologicalstruggle that is an outcome of the great economicalchanges taking place in a vast agrarian country likeRussia, where industrialization is advancing under so-cialist leadership.

The Communist International.

The Socialist Labor Party is no international party.Its "internationalism" manifests itself in the followingstatement:

"The working class of America is quite capable ofaccomplishing its emancipation without aid from the

outside."

And in accordance with this excellent Socialist LaborParty thesis, "the only Marxian organization" isolatesits members internationally and refuses to belong to anyinternational. This thesis is absolutely opposed to thefirst and most elementary slogan of Marx: "Workersof the world, unite!"

When we come to the question: Comintern or theSecond International, the Socialist Labor Party proudlyclaims that it is fighting reformism! But never havewe seen the Socialist Labor Party mobilize a hundredthof the energy with which it is fighting the revolutionaryComintern to fight the reformist Second International.

When this Socialist party speaks of the CommunistInternational it addresses it as a Russian institution.It has never occurred to the leading clique of the Social-ist Labor Party that the Comintern is an internationalorganization, is ruled by international world congressesand between them by an Executive Committee with rep-resentatives from at least some twenty different coun-tries. Or if it has occurred to the Socialist Labor Partyit has been filed as "not for publication."

The "21 points" of the Communist International arethe main source of Socialist Labor Party's hatred ofthe Comintern. These points were adopted to hinderthe entrance of opportunist elements into the Commu-nist International. And as far as the Socialist LaborParty is concerned the 21 points were a perfect hit. Itis very interesting to note that the Socialist Labor Partynever quotes anything from the resolutions, theses, orprogram of the •Communist International. Not even asingle one of the 21 points is quoted, because, if thereal text would be presented to the Socialist LaborParty workers, the leading clique could not continue itsdirty work of misinformation about the Communist Inter-national. Everything said by the Socialist Labor Partyabout the Communist International is distortion and true"American" falsifications of Communism. In this waythe Socialist Labor Party draws a carricature of the 21points and then pounces upon this carricature as revolu-tionary romanticism and triumphantly declares: "TheCommunist International is only a circus stunt and Zino-viev is a clown!" Such methods need not be given theirreal name here.

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Here are some of these distortions.1. The Socialist Labor Party claims that the 21 points

contained—•"among other things, such precepts as secret politcalorganization, side by side with open political organi-zation, THE FORMER TO CONTROL THE LAT-TER."

This is a lie. Point 3 says:

"The Communists can have no confidence in bour-geois legality. It is their duty everywhere to organ-ize a parallel organization apparatus, which in thedecisive moment will ASSIST the party to fulfill itsduty to the revolution. In such countries where theCommunists. . . cannot do all their work legallya combination of the legal and illegal activities isabsoutely necessary."

Here nothing is said about which organization shallcontrol the other. That depends upon the- conditions inthe particular countries. But the Socialist Labor Partyneeds this lie in order to be able to cry out: "Look, thisCommunist Party of America is not an independent party,ir is under the guidance of 'irresponsible,' secret, un-known, etc., leaders!" '

The second lie is contained in the following politicalphantasy:

" . . . a mandatory obligation to carry revolution-ary propaganda among the troops, plus a lot of otherstuff that aimed at the creation of a military organi-zation of the labor movement with the ultimate endin view to smash up things in general and to tell theenemy all about it beforehand."

Then the Socialist Labor Party points out how theCommunist International policy has gone bankrupt, be-cause "we see no signs of a Red Communist army!"The Socialist Labor Party tries to give the impressionthat the Communist International demands propagandaand incitement to mutiny, at once and always, in thebourgeois army, with no consideration of the prevailingconditions. And how about that "Red Communist army"of the Communist International in capitalist America?This army has never existed outside of the Socialist La-bor Party's crooked imagination. The Socialist LaborParty will never be able to produce a single statementby the Communist International where such, a policy isadvocated. The anti-militarist propaganda and work ofthe Communists is in every country strongly opposed toall ultra-leftist, "putschist" tendencies. But all anti-mili-tarist work, except of the bourgeois pacifist type, is dis-avowed by the Social Labor Party.

The polemics of the Socialist Labor Party against theCommunist International consists mostly in callingnames. Listen to this tirade addressed to the Russianand the Communist International leaders:

"You know less than nothing of American indus-trial conditions under which we have to work andorganize . . . in matters that concern the labormovement abroad, America in particular, you arebabes in the wood."

N O V E M B E R , 1926

There is logic in this! The Socialist Labor Party lead-ers know that they know less than nothing about themovement in Russia, Europe and other parts of theworld. Consequently, they believe that the leading Rus-sian comrades know nothing about America and its labormovement. They forget that the Communist Interna-tional is an international organization, that it has mem-bers from America, that many of its Russian and otherleaders have been for years working in America, etc.

But still the Communist International has much tolearn about America. Nobody has pointed that out morefrankly than the Communist International and its lead-ers themselves. But that the social-pacifists in the So-cialist Labor Party of today have anything to teach uswe most emphatically deny.

It is impossible to take up all the silly attacks of theSocialist Labor Party against the Communist Interna-tional. But one more quotation illustrating this party'sfailure to grasp the international standpoint. The Social-ist Labor Party asks most naively:

"Why is it that Russian Soviet Government tol-erates the peculiar, circus stunt antics of what isknown as the Third International?"

The Socialist Labor Party points out that the bour-geoisie would willingly assist in the industrial upbuildingof Russia—if only the Communist International was liqui-dated. Again we hear the voice of the reformist, whodoes not understand that the proletarian revolution isinternational, and that the Russian comrades, in buildingup socialism, need the assistance first of all from therevolutionary vanguard and organized workers of othercountries.

The Socialist Labor Party will never understand theinternational revolutionary movement because it neverhas been able to grasp the intenrational lessons of theRussian revolution. It never will understand why Marxprofited so much from the lessons of the class strugglesin France and Germany in 1848, or from the Paris Com-mune. Their understanding of the help that the Rus-sian revolution may give to comrades in other countriesis contained in the following words:

"That proletarian revolutions can be artificiallycreated from Moscow and that every suqh and all rev-olutionary activities in any country must be ordered,dominated and regulated in every detail from Mos-cow by means of organizations set up and financedfrom the same place."

These words give the Socialist Labor Party interpreta-tion of the work of the Comintern. There is not a singleword in this statement which has not been repudiatedwith the utmost positiveness by the Communist Inter-national. Every sentence in this quotation is anti-Lenin-ist. And the whole activity of the Communist Interna-tional is contrary to this distortion. But in spite of thisthe Socialist Labor Party declares:

The Communists believe "that revolutions can bepulled up by the hair whether they want to come ornot, regardless of economic development and politicalconstellations. . . ."

587

And again, not a single fact to prove this statement,not even half a word of a quotation! Such statementscannot be proved, because they are stupid lies. TheSocialist Labor Party has been forced to use the oldand threadbare capitalist method of knocking down yourown straw man.

No wonder that the Socialist Labor Party is pessi-mistic and sees only chaos in the international labormovement! It can see nothing of the rallying of allrevolutionary workers—yes, even the members of thesocial-democratic parties—around the ever more popularSoviet Union. Whom the gods wish to destroy they firstmake blind.

Political Perversion.

Illustrative of the perverted ideology of the SocialistLabor Party leaders are the accusations against theWorkers' Communist Party because the CAPITALISTSHAVE SENT STOOLPIGEONS AND PROVOCATEURSinto its organizations. With this they intend to provethe immoral and provocative character of the Workers'Party. Every sane, logical mind would understand thatthis is proving the immoral and provocative nature ofthose who send these provocateurs.

The Russian revolutionary organizations—especiallythe left wing—were swarmed with provocateurs and spies.But never did the Social-democrats at that time dareto accuse the Russian revolutionists because of that fact.But at that time the Social-democratic parties had notyet developed to where they are today. The SocialistLabor Party is making fine headway and It will soon benecessary to give the real interpretation to its initials:S. L. P.—the Social Lackey Party.

The Revolutionary Movement in America.

Under the pretentious heading: "Facts about AmericanWorking class," the Socialist Labor Party pamphletcomes with the following generalization:

"The American working class, the genuine Ameri-can or Americanized proletariat, in numerous re-spects is THE MOST INTELLIGENT IN THEWORLD."And a few lines further down—in contradiction to this

—it is claimed—again in the same stupid generalizingway—that the "most intelligent American working class"

"still retains faith in American opportunity andAmerican poli t ical democracy and believes that fur-ther progress is possible and can be gotten for thisgeneration and fu ture generations under the systemwhich has made past achievements possible."We do not doubt the intelligence of the American

working class. It has at least shown it by keeping awayfrom the Socialist Labor Party. And it has very oftenshown intelligence in fighting. We underscore the criti-cism that the American workers still believe in Ameri-can democracy. But we are absolutely against suchcheap generalizations as quoted above. There is a dif-ference—not to be overlooked—between the aristocracyof labor in America and the workers with low wages,long hours and rotten conditions (often worse than inmany European countries). And the most valuable signof intelligence of the working class—class consciousness

588

•—is lacking in America among large strata of the work-ers—yes, indeed, even in the organized labor movementof America.

But listen to the S, L. P. program of action:

"Little or nothing can be done to organize theAmerican mass of workers until conditions have rip-ened. In the meantime, we can ONLY AGITATE,show up conditions as they are ripening, call atten-tion to facts as they culminate, and maintain anucleus of a sound organization re«-ay for futureemergency. In other words, sow the seeds of revolu-tionary Socialism and bide the time of the harvest."

Do you recognize the voice. The arms of Esau, butthe voice of Jacob! The voice of the opportunist, theMenshevik, the Social-pacifist, who is afraid of takingpart in the class struggle. It is the pure and simplepassivity of intellectual Fabianism. And this party withsuch a platform lays claim to being the vanguard ofthe revolutionary movement of the world! If the "gen-tlemen of the ruling class allow," these gentlemen who,according to the same Socialist Labor Party pamphlet,are

"holding the reins of its working class so taut thatthere is absolutely no chance for rearing or balking."

And please remember! This is supposed to be "thenew inspiration needed" in stirring the workers. Asplendid method of inspiring the workers by telling themthat the whole class struggle is in vain!

In contradiction to this Socialist Labor Party passivitythe Communists in America look for all the revolution-izing factors and use them to revolutionize the workers,not only thru agitation and propaganda, but first of allthru taking an active part in the every day class strugglein America. The Socialist Labor Party is sending outmanifestos against strikes as a weapon for the workers,while the Communists are leading many importantstrikes and taking active part in every one of thme. Andthe Socialist Labor Party is keeping away, isolated fromthe American labor movement, while the CommunistParty is trying to get into every one of its branches, yes,more than that, trying to broaden it, to intensify it, tocreate new and more effective organizations, to breakdown the reactionary leadership of the present organi-zations, to lead the real proletarian masses into the or-ganizations of the labor aristocracy and thus transform

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

even the A. P. of L. into a machine for the revolutionaryclass struggle.

But the Socialist Labor Party contends that "thatthe chief occupation of the Workers' Party has beento play the game of majority and minority, in whichthe minority becomes the majority and viceversa. . . ."

This is true; the Workers' Communist Party has gonethru many crises in its struggle against reformist tradi-tions of the past, left over from the earlier non-commu-nist period. Traditions from the Socialist Party, Inter-national Workers of the World, and even from the So-cialist Labor Party. But every crisis has taught theWorkers' Communist Party something, has carried itforward on its revolutionary way, has contributed to itshealth and not to its death, has drawn it closer to realrevolutionary work among the American masses, has"Americanized" it in a proletarian sense of the word.

But the Socialist Labor Party! Since America's entryinto the world war every year has seen De Leon's partydrifting further away from its revolutionary path, sink-ing deeper and deeper into the reformist morass, untilit now is nearly drowned in anti-Marxian revisionism andyellow social-pacifism. That is the real difference be-tween the Socialist Labor Party and the Workers' Com-munist Party.

Only in the way in which the American section of theCommunist International is now working, only in sucha way can the American vanguard of the revolutionarymovement fight—agitating, propagating and organizingfor the class struggle of today and tomorrow. Takingpart in every fight in which workers struggle for betterconditions, attacking the fake leaders, broadening themovement, organizing larger and larger masses for thestruggle, preparing the masses for the ultimate fightin every way, and building up the real leading vanguardo£ the American social revolution, a vanguard which stillhas much to learn, and, like every revolutionary body, islearning thru its own mistakes, a vanguard which thruits theory and practice has shown and in the futurewill continue to show that it is always to be foundwhere the interests of the workers are at stake—foundthere fighting and leading and able to fight and lead insuch a way that victory will be for us, the workers, notonly of America but of all the world.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 589

The Rubber Industry—InfantProdigyBy I. Amter

rpHE rubber industry is a billion-dollar industry. Onedoes not grasp the importance of it until one

envisages the fact that there are four tires to everymotor car, more than 25,000,000 cars in use the worldover, and nearly 20,000,000 in the United States. Eightymillion tires that must be renewed every year or so.This is not the limit of the rubber tire industry, for asthe use of motor cars increases, in quadruple proportiongrows the need 'of tires.

Motor transportation is driving the short line railroadsout of existence by the sharp competition that they areoffering. Interurban railways are being abandoned formotor buses, thus increasing the need of rubber tires.The rubber tire industry thus becomes one of the primeindustries of the country, being an essential in automo-bile and motor bus transportation—for passengers andmerchandise.

Rubber is becoming one of the articles of commercethat will lead to war. The fixing of the rubber supplyby British rubber growers, thereby artificially raisingthe price of rubber from approximately 40 cents to SI.20a pound, and the ensuing threats of Secretary of Com-merce Hoover that retaliatory measures might be ap-plied against Great Britain, made American rubber man-ufacturers realizp their dependence on foreign rubbergrowers and the necessity of -securing supplies "underthe American flag," where they would 'be free from for-eign purveyors. This led to the establishment of rub-ber plantations by a few rubber concerns of the UnitedStates, but the supply thus obtained is only a small por-tion of what is consumed in the United States. Ninehundred million pounds or 450,000 tons of rubber areneeded every year for American industry. The largestpart of this is supplied by British and Dutch growers,thus placing the American manufacturers at the mercyoi' their British fellow-capitalists.

What was more natural, therefore, than that 'bigAmerican rubber manufacturers should seek fields wherethey could grow rubber unmolested?

Harvey Firestone, son of the Akron rubber tire man-ufacturer, toured Liberia and found a suitable 'Site for abig rubber plantation—a million acres in extent. Mr.Firestone was exultant when confronted with the hugepossibilities of Liberia. Only one thing stood in theway—and that was that President King of Liberia re-fused to grant the concession. The ways of manufac-turers are queer—but those of governments are lessqueer. Mr. King was promised a loan of $5,000,000 andthe objections that he harbored to granting the con-cessions disappeared.

Not alone one million acres are waiting for the grow-ing rubber trees. An abundance of native labor may beobtained. Altho Marcus Garvey had regarded Liberia

as the haven of the American Negro—which PresidentKing rejected—Mr. Firestone decided that American Ne-groes were not wanted or needed in Liberia. Yes, Li-beria, was established 'by emancipated American Negroslaves, but its doors are now closed to them. Firestonewould not be able to »se American Negroes who havebeen "emancipated" and have learned what emancipa-tion in the United States means, viz., segregation, dis-crimination, jim-crowing and lynching—an the North aswell as in the South—an established tradition in theSouth, a growing custom in the North, in keeping withthe increasing spirit and "knowledge" of the superiorityof the white race and particularly of the "Nordic." SuchNegroes in the Liberian republic—which is. nothing but.a colony—would not improve their condition. On thecontrary, it would be decidedly lowered and would onlystir up the natives to dissatisfaction.

Firestone further will not need American Negroes.The natives of Africa can do the work of growing rub-ber as well if not better than American Negroes—andthey can do it far cheaper. There is a plentiful supplyof cheap native labor in the hinterland of Liberia. Poorpeasants living on their little farms can easily have ahut or dog tax imposed on them, and in default of pay-ment of the tax—which will be seen to—will be herdedon to the plantations. Chiefs of the tribes will readilyconsent to the attractive seduction of so-and-so muchper head, and tens of thousands of native youths will bedriven in long columns to the plantations. This has beenthe .practice in South and Central Africa—a well recog-nized and "approved" method. One step in the eman-cipation of American manufacturers from the rubbermonopoly of Great Britain!

But even that is not enough. Far in the East, lie thefertile fields of the Philippines, well adapted to thegrowth of rubber. But the Filipinos have been stubborn.They have enacted laws making it unlawful to lease toany foreigner more than 2500 acres of land. This is notthe day of small industry—and particularly not an in-dustry producing sixty millions of tires every year. It is•neither practical nor economical—and the Americanbusiness man regards everything from that point ofview. Economy means bigger profits—and Americanmanufacturers are not producing commodities for thesake of supplying liuman needs. They are in businessfor profits, and profits today depend on economical man-agement and sure control.

What was to be done? Governor-General Wood is notpopular in the Philippines. He is a man of war, andaltho the Philippines are not a war colony of the UnitedStates, but have a government of their own, subject tothe control of the American government, the Filipinoshave considered that the Islands are a buttress of.

590

American imperialism in the East.What is to be done in the Philippines? American in-

dustry requires raw material—rubber, iron, tobacco,sugar. Large quantities are produced or can be pro-duced in these fertile isles. If the Filipinos are recal-citrant, they must be forced to yield to modern exigen-cies. Carmi Thompson, Republican henchman of Mr.Coolidge, and good friend of the rubber manufacturersof Akron, was suddenly despatched to the Philippines tomake a "tour of investigation" and to report to Mr. Coo-lidge. Mr. Thompson did not wait for his return to theUnited States, but found after "thoro investigation" thatthe Mandanaro Islands, inhabited by the Moros, are ex-cellently adapted to the growth of rubber, the peopleare industrious and the possibility of supplying a largepart of crude rubber from the islands is phenomenal.But the Philippine laws stand in the way—and the Fili-pinos demand independence. The Moros are Moham-medans, the Filipinos are Christians. Moro leaders areinstigated to state that they wish separation from theirChristian taskmasters, the Filipinos, and desire the tute-lage of those other Christians, the Americans. Rubber•will be grown in the Mandanaro Islands, whether byseparation from the Philippines, or by granting a newstatus to the Philippines. Rubber comes first!

American chemists have not been slow in evolvingsubstitutes for natural rubber. Synthetic rubber and thegrowth of the guayule shrubs are said to be able to fur-nish a large part of American needs. The guayule shrubmay be cultivated in the United States. Vast planta-tions will be established "in California and cheaplabor will be exploited. For hand labor 600,000 workerswill be necessary, but if machine operation is installedonly 40,000 workers will be required. A wonderful vistafor American tire manufacturers! An endless supply ofcrude rubber!

The rubber industry is a youthful industry and yet to-day is one of the most highly developed. This is dueto the fact that it arose during the period of the highlycomplicated machine and immediately became the sub-ject of the modern productive process. Developing con-comitantly with the automobile—the production of rub-ber mechanical goods, rubber shoes, boots, etc., playsbut a minor part in the industry—since 1914 the rubbertire industry has passed thru the following evolution,the figures being compiled from U. S. census reports:

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUBBER INDUSTRY.

1914 1919 1921Number wage earners 62,257 160,842 68,872Uni t of wages '> $ 705 $1,441 $1,555Cost of materials $126,111,673 $525,686,309 $291,544,377Value of products $223,610,784Value added by manufacture $ 97,499,111

These figures are enlightening. They indicate that af-ter the boom year 1919, there was a decided slump, with erg employed;

a following steady increase in production from 1921 to1925. Wages, on the other hand, rose from 1921 to 1923,and then made a big drop to below 1921. Thus in 1925,we find the following comparison with the figures of

1914:INCREASE 1914-1925.

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Unit of wages 110.9Cost of materials...,. 261.2Value of products 224.4Value added by manufacture 220.9

Eight per cent more workers added 220 per cent tothe value of the products by manufacture, for wagesamounting to 110 per cent more per man. Other figuresfor the years 1923 and 1925, compiled by the U. S. De-partment of Commerce and recently published, differsomewhat from the above, and are illuminating:

UNITED STATES TIRE AND TUBE INDUSTRY.

1923 1925Number of establishments 160 126Wage earners (average number) 73,963 81,670Uni t of wages $1,468 $1,477Cost of materials $365,165,016 $559,939,811Value of products $644,193,697 $925,032,833Value added by manufacture $279,028,681 $365,093,022Horsepower 370,551 403,227

A glance at these figures will reveal the tremendousconcentration that has taken place in the rubber tireindustry in the two years. The number of establish-ments has d imin ished from 160 to 126, while the numberof workers per plant has increased from 462 to 669—nearly 45 per cent. Cost of materials increased nearlyf!95,000,000—53.3 per cent, the value of the products in-creased nearly $281,000,000—43.6 per cent, value addedby manufacture increased 186,000,000—30.8 per cent,horsepower increased 33,3000. The un i t of wages, on theother hand, grew only $9—or only 61-100 of 1 per cent.

The state of Ohio contains 44 of the 126 establish-ments, and of these 11 are in the city of Akron. TheAkron rubber tire factories turn out 52 per cent of theentire production of tires in the United States. In 1925,335,873 long tons of crude rubber were consumed in theUnited States, and of these Ohio consumed 195,152 longtons. The figures for Ohio corresponding with theabove are as follows:

1923 1925Number of establishments 53 44Wage earners 42,476 50,350Uni t of wages $1,584 $1,519Cost of materials $217,184,851 $330,554,798Value of products $391,316,559 $556,262,424Horsepower 192,895 219,341

192386,939$1,605

192567,417

$1,487

$987,088,045 $496,123,335$461,401,736 $204,568,958

$364,585,403 $455,494,706$643,336,253 $768,391,932$278,750,850 $312,879,226

Wage earners

Per cent.. 8.3

An increase of 18.5 per cent in the number of work-

per cent in the cost of materials, 42.2

per cent in the value of the products, 13.7 per cent in

the horsepower in use—more than 50 per cent of the

horsepower used in the whole industry, and an increaseof 26,446 out of the increase of 32,676 horsepower forthe entire country. At the same time, wages declined$65, or 4.1 per cent.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

Akron, the capital of the rubber industry, reveals thefollowing figures for 1925:

Number of establishments 11Wage earners 43,391Uni t of wages $1,531.44Cost of materials $282,464,965Value of products $480,330,347

In 11 establishments, an average of 3,945 workers wereemployed in each—or nearly five times as many as in theentire country, contributing 52 per cent of the tire out-put. In two establishments, the Goodyear Tire and Rub-ber Company, and the Goodrich Tire and Rubber Com-pany, 30,000 workers are employed, or nearly 70 per centof the total in the city of Akron, 36.7 per cent in theentire industry. With this fact, Akron becomes the rub-ber center of the country and of the world—and thesetwo establishments are the determining factor in the in-ternational rubber tire industry. The remainder of theproduction is distributed in New Jersey, Wisconsin,Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts and practicallyin every part of the country-

Out of the 335,873 tons of crude rubber, the tons of re-claimed rubber and of guayule rubber, 58,784,073 and77,387,836 inner tubes were manufactured in 1925. Thebig companies have branches in other countries, andsmall establishments in different parts of the UnitedStates. Millions of casings, inner tubes as well as rub-ber boots, shoes, heels and millions of pounds of rubberbelting, hose, water bottles, electrical hard-rubber goods,etc., as well as scrap rubber, are exported to every partof the world.

591

The companies maintain a large force of salesmen,elaborate laboratories, efficiency experts, they have train-ing schools and all the machinery in order to extractthe last ounce of value from the labor of the workers.

The rubber tire industry is second to none in its "mod-ernity," and every week or month witnesses an innova-tion. The rubber companies have their own fabricplants, their own mines, some of them their own planta-tions—the rubber industry had few if any heritages todivest itself of. It Sprang into the world—a modern in-dustrial giant, developing ever more power.

As such, it must not be presumed that the companiesare independent. The stock of these rubber companiesis on the market, and the bankers of New York, recog-nizing the profitableness of the industry, have not hesi-tated to invest in them and hold control over them.Thus, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is con-trolled by Dillon, Reed Company, the bankers ofNew York, whose investment in and control over theDodge Motor Car Company, whose Duying of stock inGerman steel and coal concerns, and effecting of loansto German municipalities and industrial establishments,have fixed the name of this banking house in the historyof modern financial control.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in the

rubber tire industry of Akron and the rest of the coun-

try, turning out a billion dollars' worth of products and

earning scores of millions of dollars in profits every

year. This is an infant prodigy—this rubber industry—

and most lucrative for the investors.

592 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 593

Can They Ever Learn?By John M. Brown

TTNDER the above caption we find the following edi-torial in the September issue of the "Industrial Pio-

neer":

"The other day the writer was told that when theI. W. W. engages in free speech fights it leaves theeconomic path and takes to po l i t i ca l highways. Itis t imely to check such confusion. When the I. W.W. fights for free speech it is f ighting for the op-portunity to get its message to the workers. TheI. W. W. message is economic, not po l i t i ca l . In astrike a worker may have to defend himself with aclub against scabs, but he is s t i l l a unionist and nota slugger. We need free speech in our economic pro-gram, and when we fight for it such struggle is partof our industrial union activity and cannot be char-acterized as po l i t i ca l . It should also be rememberedthat in our free speech fights the I. W. W. was notbattl ing for free speech for the Salvation Army orthe Y. M. Q. B.'s. There is nothing abstract aboutthis matter so far as our organization is concerned.Free speech is a necessity to revolutionary industrialunion propaganda. F ight ing to obtain or maintainit is part of our economic course."

Were it not such a serious matter for the emancipa-tion struggle of. the working class, it would be reallyamusdng to watch the anxiety with which some workerstry to avoid political action. And when they are forcedinto it by the inexorable laws of the class struggle thenthey are equally anxious to tell the world that they are"not guilty," that their political action was really andtruly only part of their economic struggle. "If we fightfor free speech," they tell us, "we do not fight for it asan end in itself, but as a weapon for our economic eman-cipation."

If it helps to come to an understanding on this point,we can assure our anarcho-syndicalist opponents thatwe do not fight for political power as an end in itself,but that we consider political power the indispensableweapon in our struggle for emancipation.

Society is divided into classes. The working classand the capitalist class are lined up against each otherin irreconcilable opposition. This opposition manifestsItself in the class struggle, sometimes more, sometimesless intensive.

What weapons do the contending classes possess? Or-ganization, first of all. Organization supplies an armyto the contending forces and gives system and clarityto the struggle.

But the armies must have weapons. The economicorganizations of the workers have strike, boycott, etc."The economic power of the capitalists lies in the own-

ership and the complete control of the workshops, fac-tories and mines. By striking the workers can stop theflow of profits for the capitalist. The capitalist, how-ever, by privately owning all means of production, canstop the flow of food for the workers. It is evident,therefore, that the strike cannot be an all-defeatingweapon. The problem turns to be one of not merelydefeating the capitalists in the immediate object of thestruggle, but of taking away the most formidable weap-on from the capitalists by abolishing private owner-ship of the means of production.

Well, say our anarcho-syndicalist opponents, we willsimply take the means of production away from thecapitalists by taking possession of them ourselves.Simple, is it not? Altogether too simple, unfortunately.

The economic organization of the workers msets withthe resistance of more than the economic power ofthe capitalists. In all of its struggles the proletariatmeets the pol i t ica l power of the opposing class.

First, the workers must be propagandized. To be ableto do that freedom of speech, of the press, of assemblyand of organization are indispensable. To get these astruggle is necessary, a political struggle. No matterwhat the ultimate aim is, the struggle is a politicalone. It is for the establishment of- political privileges.It is against the political structure of the state. It ispolitical in the immediate aim as well as in its imme-diate character.

We can never for a minute assume that the strugglefor all of these liberties can succeed under capitalismand without applying "political" action. What then?The masses are ready to take possession of the meansof production. But there are laws against that. Well,we can overlook the laws. But there is something thatcannot be overlooked. There is the military and thepolice power of the state, well organized, excellentlyarmed. The lawmaker, the judge, the policeman, thesoldder, in short every office and every officer of thestate turns out to be a bulwark of private ownershipof the means of production by the capitalists.

If we want to emancipate ourselves from the shacklesthat private property of the means of production putupon us we must storm this bulwark. We must con-quer this formidable machine, the stats power, and mustturn it from a bulwark for the capitalists and for pri-vate property into an instrument of the workers againstthe capitalists and against private property.

Our anarcho-syndicalist opponents say: "Why botherwith the state? The state is the incarnation of bad-ness. It is an instrument of oppression and suppression.We are in principle opposed to it. Therefore, why soilour hands with politics? Let us leave the state alone."

They even try to practice what they preach. By ab-staining from political action, they attempt to leave italone. But unfortunately it does not leave them alone.It haunts them. It oppresses them. It suppresses them.It forces them to take notice of it—but all of no avail.These anti-political actionists never seem to learn.

We do not question that the state is an instrumentof oppression and suppression and that it is bad. Onthe contrary. We deal with it just because it oppressesus and fights us. It is not "bad in principle." A so-ciety which is divided into classes with irreconcilableinterests needs a state power. It is this necessity thatproduced the state. The state is the power which main-tains the interests of one class as predominiuant againstthe interests of all other classes in society. Otherwiseorganized society would be impossible and instead chaoswould reign as long as class divisions exist in society.

At present the interests of the capitalist class arepredominant in society. The state is a capitalist state.

If we workers want to make the interests of our classpredominant we must get possession of this state. OnlyDy this conquest can we transform ourselves from theoppressed into the ruling, ye;s, the oppressing class. Thestate is only bad for us as long as it is against us, aslong as it remains the capital is t state. The state willbe good for us the minute we make out of it a workers'state.

Even the perturbed conscience of the "opponents inprinciple' to the state can find consolation. In the revo-lution they may close their eyes to the awful presencewhen the terrible workers' state will suppress the "poor"capitalists, and look with hope into the future, in whichthe capitalist class is 'completely abolished. With theclasses disappearing the hitherto indispensable instru-ment of suppression, the state, will have nothing left tosuppress. Then our shivering "opponents in principle"to the state may open their eyes and rejoice, becauseby then the objectionable state will have removed it-Keif from their eyes.

But our objectors must beware. "The state" has notendency to commit suicide. Only the proletarian statehas. Tie capitalist state will never commit suicide. On:the contrary, its tendency is to perpetuate itself. It mustfrie removed against its will. And the "objection in prin-c.iple" stands in the way of its removal. So instead ofgetting rid of the state, the "objectors" merely help topreserve It. Unlike Mephisto our "objectors" becomepart of that force which desires only the good but al-ways accomplishes the bad.

But all that is leading us too far away from our non-political free speech fights. These free speech fights,our anarcho-syndicalist opponents maintain, are not po-litical action because "We are merely fighting to getour message before the workers." There is nothing ab-stract about at, they assure us. But neither is therethe least abstract in our fight for state power. It isabstract to fight the state in principle because "thestate" is an abstraction. Free from ail abstraction,however, is every fight against the capital is t state. Thecapitalist state is far from being an abstraction. Anypolice club in a free speech fight or a strike, can con-vince our anarcho-syndicalist opponents of that.

When the workers fight the capitalists and the statepower is continually hitting the workers over theirheads with all of the very formidable weapons at itscommand it will not help the workers the least bit tobe opposed to the state power in principle. What isneeded is to fight back. The worker; either recognizethe state as a belligerent power on the side of the capi-talist in the class war and organize to conquer thispower, or it will conquer the workers for its ally andmaster, the capitalist class.

The only instrument of the workers to conquer thestate is political action under the leadership of a revo-lutionary political party. We submit this to our an-archo-syndicalist opponents for consideration. Andmeanwhile we wait, and cogitate: "Can they ever learn?"

594 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 595

The Steel-Making Minerals andImperialism

By Will Herberg

"The metallurgical industry . . . now plays the roleof the most important leading industry in the economiclife of all first class industrial countries—the role, so tospeak, of the central industrial star, around which, likeplanets around the sun, there revolve the other impor-tant branches of the capitalist economy of the largeststates

"Our century may quite rightly be called the IRONcentury and metallurgy must be called the queen ofindustry."

—Pavlovitch, Foundations of Imperialist Policy.

rpHAT iron is the very .basis of the modern world econ-omy is a well-known fact; it must not be forgotten,

however, that our "iron age" rests not upon iron but uponsteel. It is steel that forms the material basis of thelatest stage of capitalism.

The Ferro-Alloys.

Now there is one remarkable fact about steel, which,considering the surpassing importance of the metal inmodern life, it is surprising is not more widely known.To produce steel iron and carbon are not all that isneeded; there are certain little-known minerals that areabsolutely essential for the process. These steel-makingminerals, technically known as the ferro-alloys, as justas essential as the iron itself. Why? Because, as Pro-fessor Howe explains (article: Iron and Steel, Encyc.Britan. XI edition):

"The general order of merit of a given variety ofspecimen of iron or steel may be measured by the degreeto which it combines strength and hardness with duc-tility. These two classes of properties tend to excludeeach other, for, as a general rule, whatever tends tomake iron and steel hard and strong tends to make itcorrespondingly brittle and hence liable to break treach-erously, especially under shock."

But steels made with the ferro-alloys "form an impor-tant exception to this rule in being at once very hardand strong and very ductile." These little-known min-erals make it possible, in other words, to produce steelsthat can bear the strain of 'modern industry.

The Politics of the Ferro-Alloys.

The ferro-alloys—manganese, chrome, nickel, tungstenare the most prominent—are of great importance notonly in world economics but also in world politics. Forit must be remembered that the politics of imperialismare dictated, to a great measure, by the requirements ofmetallurgy, 1 and these little-known minerals are amongthe essential elements of modern metallurgical industry.

The Distribution of the Ferro-Alloys.

The chief significance of the ferro-alloys for imperialist

politics lies in their distribution and location. "It cannotbe repeated too often," as Spurr remarks, "that each ofthe metals and useful minerals occurs chiefly in certainspots or restricted areas of the earth's surface and, inthis regard, each metal is a law unto itself." Now, it hap-pens that the specific distributions of the various impor-tant steel-making minerals (in relation to the localtion ofiron and coal as well as to political boundaries) is olsuch a character as to make them of primary importancein the world politics of imperialism.

Let us consider briefly the various ferro-alloys andtheir distribution.

Manganese. "Manganese steel . . . is of very greatductility accompanied by great hardness." "For the pro-duction of good steel in adequate quantities manganeseis indispensable," and so altho less than one per centby weight of steel is manganese over 95 per cent of allmanganese is used in steel making. Manganese is prettywidely distributed over the earth's surface, but in com-mercially sufficient quantities is found only in certainparts of the world, particularly in I n d i a , Brazil andRussia, with the possibility of a new source in someparts of Africa. 2 American, British, French, Germanproduction is ordinarily negligible.

Nickel . "Nickel steel . . . combines very great ten-sile strength and hardness, with a very high limit ofelasticity, with great ductility. Its combination of duc-tility with strength and hardening power has given itvery extended use for armor of war vessels." Nickelis; more better known than manganese, but, strangelyenough, nearly 85 per cent of the world's nickel supplycomes from one single loaclity—Ontario, Canada—andmuch of the rest from Austral ia and New Caledonia . 3The production of the rest of the world is practicallynegligible.

Tungsten. Tungsten steel is used largely for magnets,but particularly for high-speed machine tools. "In 191892 per cent of the world's tungsten came from the coun-tries bordering the Pacific—61 per cent from the westernside: Asia, Austral ia and Oceana, and 31 per cent fromNorth and South America." 4 As for the rest, theIber ian Peninsu la produces about 4 per cent, and the restis scattered. The single most important tungsten-pro-ducing country is China. "Chinese ore dominated themarket during the year, both in the United States andEurope." 5

(1) Pavlovitch, Foundations of Imperialist Policy, p.120. "The metallurgical industry plays a colossal role inthe foreign policy of the modern states."

(2) Mineral Resources of the United States, 1920. PartI—MPtals. Published by the Department of the Interior,p. 277. _j

(3) Mineral Resources, etc., pp. 405-406.(4) J. B. Spurr, as above.(5) Mineral Resources, etc., p. 411.

Chrome. "Chrome steel . . . (is) made to resist greatwear and violent stresses, such as those imposed uponarmor plate, automobile springs and 'bearings, and jawsof rock crushers." Most of the so-called "stainless steel"is also chrome steel. "In 1921 Rhodesia furnished about36 per cent of the world production (of chromite), I n d i a28 per cent, and New Caledonia 23 per cent, other sourcesbeing scattered and small." 6

V a n a d i u m . "Vanadium . . . increases the resistance(of steel) to shock and to oft-repeated stress." "Morethan half of the world's vanadium supply comps fromPeru," 7 while the rest comes from the United Statesand southwest Africa.

Ferro-Alloys and Backward Countries.

"JF we examine the scanty data given above as to tnedsitribution of the steel-making minerals, one thing ap-

pears particularly striking: that, in general, these min-erals, so absolutely essential to steel making, are notfound to any appreciable degree in the chief steel-pro-ducing countries, or in those countries that have abun-dant and easily accessible supplies of iron and coal, themain elements in the manufacture of steel. America,Germany, Great Britain, France, Belgium—these are thechief steel-manufacturing countries of the world. "Twoiron ore fields—the Lake Superior region in the UnitedStates and the Lorraine region of the Franco-Germanborder region—have for years produced more than halfof the worlds supply." 8 But the ferro-alloys, equallynecessary for the manufacture of good steel, are not tobe found in these great industrial countries. On thecontrary, these minor minerals are to be found in the"backward," undeveloped countries, in the colonies andthe semi-colonies or in countries of a similar status—India, Brazil, Canada, New Caledonia, Australia, Peru,China and Asia and Africa generally.

Mineral Problems Are World Problems.

This is of profound significance—the fact that the greatmodern imperialist steel-producing nations can only gettheir ferro-alloys from the "backward," undevelopedparts of the earth! It brings out more clearly than everthe oft-repeated fact that "mineral problems are worldproblems."

The Basic Contradiction of Imperialism.

Considered from the viewpoint of rational economy, itis apparent from the above facts that, at the presentstage of economic development, the whole world formsa single economic unity—not simply a commercial unitybound together by the world market, but an actual pro-ducing unit united by the demands of modern industrialtechnique. Were, therefore, the world economy organ-ized on a conscious, planned, rational basis the disparityof distribution of the various mineral components of steelwould be no more than an interesting and importanttechnical fact. But, under the rule of capitalism, world

(6) J. E. Spurr, as above.(7) Mineral Resources, etc., p. 415.(8) J. E. Spurr, as above.

economy is not organized on a conscious, rational basis;the capitalist economy is an anarchistic economy and is"organized" thru the fierce and frequently bloody com-petition of national trust monopolies and internationalgroupments. The "backward," undeveloped territories,so important industrially, can under capitalism be inte-grated into the scheme of world economy only thru themade race for colonies that is so characteristic of impe-rialism—and then, of course, integrated imperfectly andat a great loss of productive forces. Thus capitalismstands most grossly in the way of the development ofthe forces of production, in the way of the unification andconsolidation of the entire world as a producing mechan-ism.

Bourgeois Solutions—"Anglo-American Understandings."

This basic contradiction of imperialism—the unity ofthe world from the point of view of the organization ofthe productive forces as opposed to the fierce competi-tion of national monopolistic groups for spheres of cap-ital investment and sources of raw material—manifestsitself under a thousand forms every day, but nowhereis it clearer than in the question of the production ofsteel, as we have analyzed it above. The bourgeoisspecialists have recognized this and has attempted tosolve the contradiction within the limits of capitalism.Here is what Joseph Edward Spurr, editor of the Engi-neering and M i n i n g Journal-Press, writes in ForeignAffairs (July, 1926):

"There is a tendency, when steel making nationalsdo not find a supply of the necessary ferro-alloy min-erals in their own country, to acquire mines abroad, andthus insure a fixed and steady supply, which will beinterrupted only in case of war so violent as to disruptocean traffic. Thus the vanadium deposits of Peru, themanganese deposits of Russia, the nickel deposits of Can-ada, and chrome deposits of Cuba have become control-led by American companies. In its importance to na-tional industry, this form of commercial control is sec-ondary only to that of political control; but peaceful re-lations not only with the foreign countries directly in-

volved, but with those patrolling the seas, are necessaryfor its permanent efficacy.

"The great desideratum of universal peace finds hereone of its most practical arguments. But in the mean-while, it is of interest to note that the mining conductedby the Anglo-Saxon nations—the United States and theBritish Empire—produces the bulk of the world's mine-eral supplies . . . These two Anglo-Saxon nations alsohave the power to keep open the lanes of ocean commerce.

"Here is one of the strong practical arguments infavor of an Anglo-American understanding, at least asto the free development and trade movement of mineralsupplies thruout all the earth; and it might form the be-ginning of a much stronger economic league embracingother nations . . . . Only arrangements based upon com-mon economic interest and mutual material helpfulnesswill prove stable."

It is obvious, however, that any such solution is a mereUtopia. Mr. Spurr seems to realize it himself, for hesuccessively contracts his field of international peaceunder imperialist capitalism, first, from "universal peace"to "in the meanwhile . . . an Anglo-American under-standing," and then again to "an Anglo-American under-standing, at least as to the free development and trademovement of mineral supplies thruout all the earth."Even supposing this "Anglo-American understanding"were possible, what would it be but the erection of asuper-bloc of monopolies ifor the struggle against other

(Continued on page 600)

596 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Twenty-Five Years of the InternationalTrade Union Movement

By A. Lyss

/~\ the twenty-first of August, 1901, there was held atCopenhagen a conference of the secretaries of the

trade union centers of a number of countries. At thisconference an " In terna t iona l Secretariat" was electedand it was decided regularly to convene conferences ofthe representatives of the various national trade unionorganizations. Up to 1913 eight such conferences hadbeen called, one and later of two years apart.

But the year 1901 was only formally the date of theformation of the international trade union center. At-tempts to consolidate the trade unions and labor or-ganizations had already been made before the Copen-hagen conference. The First International organized in1866 and baptized by Karl Marx saw the trade unionsand their international unification as one of the mostimportant tasks of the labor movement. In the reso-lution of the First Congress referring to this question wefind: "If the trade un ions are necessary for the every-day struggle between labor and capital , they are a l l themore necessary as an o rgan iza t iona l means for the over-throw of the wages system and the ru l e of capital."Concerning the necessity for the international solidar-ity of the working class it is said further: "Hi ther toall the great aims of the work ing class have been shat-tered thru the insuf f i c ien t sol idar i ty of the workers ofthe various branches of indus t ry in the same countryand thru the lack of u n i t y of the work ing classes of thevarious countries. The emancipat ion of the workers isno local or na t ional p rob lem but it 'is a problem involv-ing a l l countries."

Accordingly, therefore, the First International, thirty-five years before the Copenhagen conference establish-ed quite clearly and unequivocally the class characterof the trade union movement and the necessity for theinternational consolidation of the working class.

TTtROM the first congress of the International to thepresent day the history of the international socialist

movement has been a struggle between Marxism onthe one hand and anarchism and reformism on the other.This struggle greatly furthered the international tradeunion movement and helped it assume definite form,ideologically and organizationally.

Up to 1872 (Hague Congress) the struggle was againstBakuninism; it ended with the expulsion of Bakuninand his adherents from the First International—whichof course, strengthened the socialist wing thru restrict-ing the influence of the Bakuninists to a few industriallybackward Latin countries of Europe. But the final ide-

ological and organizational separation of the two wingsof the labor movement was not accomplished until theZurich (1893) and London (1896) Congresses o'J theSecond International. 1

After the collapse of the First International and theorganization of the Second a number of internationalconferences took place in which the trade unions eagerlyparticipated. At the conference in Paris in 1883 therewere present the representatives of the English tradeimions while the conference called by the Paris tradeunions on the occasion of the "First International In-dustrial Exposition" was attended by delegates of theEnglish and French trade unions as well as by the rep-resentatives of the workers' parties.

This period was signalized by the sharp three-sidedstruggle between the "Possibilists," the English tradeunions who were quite satisfied with a few crumbs, andthe socialist wing of the labor movement.

The result of this struggle was that the English de-cided to break with the revolutionary wring which foundits chief support in the political parties. The EnglishTrade Union Congress at Southsea (September 11, 1S87)instructed its parliamentary committee to call a con-ference for the next year from which the political lead-ers would be excluded so that the conference would bemade up only of delegates elected by the trade unionmembership and sent at their expense.

The congress of 1888 was, therefore, actually the firstattempt (after the conferences of 1883 and 1886 atwhich, as we have said, representatives of trade unionsparticipated) at an international consolidation of thetrade unions. When the question of international unitywas considered the English (trade unionists) proposedto create an organization of. a purely trade union char-

(1) Space does not permit us to examine the posi-tive side of Bakuninism and anarchism, which haveplayed a prominent role in the history om the labor move-ment role in the history of the labor movement, particu-larly in the history of the trade union movement (revo-lutionary syndicalism).

Revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism of the later period(end of the 19 century and pre-war time) was a healthyreaction against reformism. The theoretically incorrectdoctrines (the rejection of the political struggle, of thestate and the proletarian dictatorship during the transi-tion period) were made up for by the revolutionary pro-test against reformism, by the issuing of general classslogans, by an actual mass struggle for the eight hourday, etc. The most valuable element of the anarcho-syndicalism of this period, its element of struggle, waslater taken over by the revolutionary Marxist wing ofthe labor movement. During war and post-war times an-archo-syndicalism degenerated almost completely Intoopportunism. Interntationa! reformism is in no positionto fight against the excesses manifested by this particu-lar form of reformism in a number of Latin countries ofEurope and America. This task falls to the revolutionarywing of the international labor movement, the wing thathas broken with reformism in all its forms and varieties.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

acter. From the English point of view this signified astrict separation from the general political tasks of thelabor movement and the turning aside of the trade un-ion movement into the strictly practical channels ofEnglish trade unionism. Since the socialists were in amajority at this congress the English failed to carrythru their proposal. But the ultra-lefts (the French)also suffered a defeat. Their proposal to fight for aneight-hour day by means of general strike was also de-feated. '

The next international trade union congress was calledfor 1889. But isince the struggle between the Marxistsand the Possibilists had already reached the climax,there took <place—in spite of a preliminary conference—two parallel congresses of Marxists and of Possabilists,with the English trade unions attending the latter.

In 1896 the Second International called an "Interna-tional Labor and Trade Union Congress" for London.Among the 475 delegates to this congress 185 were rep-resentatives of the English trade unions. The congresswas characterized by a unity of the political and tradeunion struggle of the working class that did not pleasethe English trade unions very much.

After a number of other attempts to organize the tradeunions internationally, the corner stone was finally laidin 1901 thru the creation of an "International Secre-tariat" of trade unions, with Karl Legien, the chairmanof the German Trades Union Federation, as secretary,a position he maintained until 1919. We must remem-ber, however, that the beginnings of international tradeunion organization go back much further and that, to acertain extent, 1901 was only formally a beginning.

The period up to 1901 is divided into two parts. Theyears from 1866 to 1901 are characterized by the recog-nition of the unity of the political and the trade unionstruggle. The first portion of this period—up to thefounding of the Second International (1889)—was mark-ed 'by a 'passionate ideological struggle for the crystal-lization of the class aims of the labor movement, by the(struggle of revolutionary Marxism against Bakuninismand Anarchism and against the right wing—the reform-ists, the possibilists, the trade unionists.

The second part of this period already begins to bearwithin itself—ralmost from the time of the founding ofthe Second International—seeds of opportunism andcompromise that came to expression, on the one hand,in the concessions to its own right wing (Paris Congressin 1900 approves the entrance of French socialist in thebourgeois government) and, on the other, in its impo-tence in the face of the saber-shaking Imperialism (lackof a concrete program in the matter of the struggleugainst war, for example).

Of course the struggle of political tendencies did notremain without influence on the trade unions. Whereasin the period of the First International, including thecongress in 1888, the English trade union methods—com-promising trade unionism—found no favor among themajority of the representatives of socialist and tradeunion organizations, in the time of the Second Interna-

597

tional, however, the trade union movement of manycountries, England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Scandi-navia, began to approach closer and closer to oppor-tunism.

* * *

JN the twenty years between 1890 and 1910 Imperial-ism flourished as never before—and ended in the

World War. For a number of European states (especial-ly for Germany since the 90's) this period was a time ofquick economic advance. Capitalism developed the techni-cal and economic possibilities to the limit—and gave anumber of concessions to the workers. The situationof the working class in this period—particularly in Ger-many, which was now in the front rank—was markedby the possibility for better conditions of labor, betterwages, and an organizational strengthening of the tradeunions.

The growth in membership of the class trade unionsaffiliated to the "International Secretariat" from 1904 to1914 is shown in the following table:

1904 2,477,0001905 2,a4a,ooo1906 3,663,0001907 4,097,0001908 4,238,0001909 5,808,0001910 6,119,0001911 B,»UO,UOO1912 /,383,0001913 /VU2,UUU

The total number of organized workers in 30 coun-tries amounted (according to the figures supplied by theInternational Labor Office) in 1906, to 9,534,000; in 1913,to 16,152,000.

In comparison with the former decade the tempo 01growth of the trade unions increased considerably.

The following table gives us some data on the in-crease of wages (the average wage for the period of1901 to 1910 is taken as 100.- 2 . .

Germany England France Italy United States1891 79 93 88 .... 821901 9b TOO 101 SI 821913 125 107 113 129 119

According to the same figures for the period of 1906to 1913 the real wages are only a trifle lowrer in Englandand France.

The general rise in nominal wages, particularly in thelast decade of the nineteenth century, is remarkable be-cause the real wages rose at the same time, beginningto sink gradually only in the first decade of the twentiethcentury.

This situation put its mark upon the policy and .ac-tivity of the trade unions. Compare the strike wave of1917-1926 with the strike movements of 1890 to 1917 orindeed with the first fifteen years of the 20th century(1900-1914). We must admit that, with the exception ofRussia (1905-1907) and isolated spontaneous risings inthe last years before the war (Russia 1912-1914, England1911-1912), the number of strike is relatively insignifi-cant, the curve of strikes continued without any seriousdisturbance, the number of participants in strikes show-ed no great variations. At any rate, there certainly canbe no comparison between the period before 1917 andthe stormy strike wave during the post-war years.

(2) Voitinsky, Die Welt in Zahlen.

598 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 599

It i-s, of course, true that strikes are not the only cri-terion of the intensity of the struggle of the working-class; yet strikes have always been and remain themost (powerful weapon of the trade unions for the crys-talization of the class position of the workers and fortheir economic struggle against capitalism. The ebb inthe strike wave towards the end of the nineteenth andthe beginning of the twentieth century (except for afew countries) can be explained thru the fact that capi-talism, in its period of upward development, was ableto concede higher wages to the workers. It was pre-cisely at this time that there arose the notorious theory,created primarily by the German reformists, that theworking class must adjust its class policy to the boomand crisis periods of capitalism. In the time of eco-nomic advance increased economic demands must beput forward; in the period of crisis -we must necessarilyagree to a lowering of wages and to a worsening ofthe other conditions of labor. Thus was laid the basisfor the class collaboration and class peace which char-acterize modern reformism in the trade unions.

Such were the economic conditions of the period inwhich the international center of the trade union move-ment wais formed and began to develop. The dominat-ing role of the Germans in forming and in leading theinternational trade union center until 1913 was deter-mined by historic conditions (active participation of theGermans in the struggle for the Socialist International)as* .well' as-by thje economic advance of Germany whichhad considerable influence on the trade unions andplaced them,in the front rank in regard to organizationand to improved conditions of labor.

At the end of the 90's of the last century the Frenchlabor movement had not yet recovered from the con-sequences of the Prance-Prussian war and from the de-feat of the proletariat thru the overthrow of the ParisCommune.

Again, England's position of monopoly was beginningto be undermined in the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury by the competition of now countries, particu-larly Germany. In the English working class a certainfermentation began to manifest itself which, tho notstrong enough to exercise a revolutionary influence up-on the international center, was yet in a position tochange the conservative orientation of the trade unionsin England itself.

Germany, towards the end of the 90's and the begin-ning of the new century, was marked by the victory ofreformism over the left minority. This victory had greatinfluence upon the policy of the trade unions and soonthe right leaders began to exercise pressure upon theparty.

TN the thirteen years up to the world 'war the Interna-•*• tional Secretariat (renamed, in 1913 at the Zurichconference, "The International Federation of TradeUnions") did not succeed in becoming a real fightingunion of the international trade union movement. Infact the International Secretariat did not really attemptan actual militant consolidation of the trade unions. Itstasks, as laid down in a number of conferences, con-

sisted chiefly in information, in the organization of"uniform statistics," in mutual aid, etc. The interna-tional conferences declined to investigate "theoreticaland other tendencies or the tactics of the trade unionmovements of the individual countries."

Already before the war this conservative leading cen-ter was opposed by revolutionary minorities in manycountries. In Germany the minority was alliedwith the Marxist minority of the Socialist-DemocraticParty. In France, there arose within the C. G. T. thatwas steadily going to the right a revolutionary-syndi-calist minority leaning ideologically in a Marxist direc-tion, etc.

The World War and the collapse of the Second Inter-national that followed tore the frail ties uniting the in-ternational trade union movement. With the outbreakof the war not only did the center of the world tradeunion movement cease to exist but it also became cleart.hat this center and the organizations affiliated to itpossessed no international ideology and quite cheerfullyplaced themselves at the disposal of the national in-terests of their particular countries.

The world war smashed the contemplative "informa-tional" existence of the reformist international center;at the same time, however, it ishowed the working classof the whole world what a trade union internationalshould not be. In the revolutionary centers of the vari-ous countries it awoke the latent strivings for greateractivity and greater consolidation.

Then began the period of attempts to, create a realinternational of trade unions which culminated in theformation of the Red International of Labor Unions afterthe Russian revolution.

The revolutionary wing of the international trade un-ion movement finds its support in the historical tradi-tions of the First International and in that clear recog-nition of the class position and the class aims of thetrade unions which characterizes Marx and his follow-ers, the Communists, and separates them from theepigones and falsifiers of Marxism, the reformists of allvarieties.

After a number of fruitless conferences in the years1915, 1916 and 1917, where it proved impassible to re-concile the national antagonisms of the trade unionistsof the Entente and of the Central Powers, there wasfinally created, in 1919, a new center, the so-called Am-sterdam International.

The period of 1919 to 1921, immediately following theorganization of the Amsterdam International, was char-acterized by a mass influx of workers into the tradeunions. Whereas, in 1913, the International Secretar-iat included about seven million organized workers, in1920 the membership of the unions affiliated to the Am-sterdam International already amounted to 28 millionThis influx of members into the trade unions, the gigan-tic growth of the strike movement in the United States,England, Germany, France, Italy (where, in 1919, over10 million workers all around participated in strikes)created favorable conditions for the development of thetrade union movement. In view of the mass influx ofworkers into the trade unions, of the development of

the strike wave, and of the revolution in Russia andGermany, the bourgeoisie was forced to make a num-ber of concessions on the political field (universal suf-frage in a large number of countrieis) and in social legis-lation (introduction of the eight-hour day). These con-cessions were to be a dike against the revolutionaryflood. And indeed, these concessions, obtained thru thepressure of the workers, strengthened the faith of themasses in the reformist trade unions and consequentlyalso strengthened the Amsterdam International.

When the revolutionary tide began to ebb the realaspect of the Amsterdam International became clear.

The Amsterdam International did indeed advance fromthe pre-war functions of "information" to "activity";but this activity was exclusively directed against theclass interests of the working class.

The history of the Amsterdam International lies openbefore us. We know its position and its attitude on allimportant questions of 'world politics and of the labormovement; we know its friendly attitude towards theVersailles Treaty, towards the reparation system andthe Dawes' Plan, its impotence in the struggle againstthe occupation of the Ruhr, against the danger of newwars, against Fascism and the offensive of capital. Wellknown also is its antagonistic attitude towards the Rus-sian revolution and towards the idea of the unity of thetrade union movement.

The policy of the Amsterdam International—the mainfeatures of which could already be seen in the rightwing of the • labor movement even before the Copen-hagen conference—the policy of class -peace, of class-collaboration, considerably helped the bourgeoisie in itsfirst offensive of the post-war period. This offensive ofcapital upon the ebb of the revolutionary wave still con-tinues today; the working class is still compelled tofight to maintain its most important gains.

To the degree that the masses free themselves fromreformist illusions does the revolutionary wing of theinternational trade union movement—within or withoutAmsterdam—grow and develop.

TTPON the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of^ the trade union movement the Amsterdam Interna-tional has organized a propaganda week under the slo-gan: "Back into the trade unions! Fight for the inter-national eight-hour day!"

Unless there is some change in the policy of the Am-sterdam International these slogans are useless. Foris not the policy of the reformist bureaucrats and ofAmsterdam the immediate cause for the exodus of theworkers from the trade unions? Is it not their faultthat about ten million members (of the 23 million of1919 only 16 million remain) have been lost to the tradeunions? Was it not the leaders of the reformist tradeunions that organized the mass expulsions of membersof the revolutionary wing in the trade unions of Ger-many, France, America, and other countries?

Fight for the eight-hour day! Do not these same peo-ple in the camp of Amsterdam, who today issue this

slogan, bear the blame for the loss of the eight-hourday? This is seen clearly in Germany. The social-democratic Reichstag fraction, including the trade uniondeputies, voted on December 4, 1923, for the EmpoweringLaw which gave the government and the employers afree hand in the regulation of the hours of labor. ThisEmpowering Law made it possible for the governmentto issue the well-known decree of December 21, 1923, per-mitting the employer to smash the eight-hour day inGermany without any consideration.

What has happened to Germany has been repeatedin one form or another in many other countries, thanksto the passivity or the direct treason of the leaders ofthe Amsterdam tendency. Only a short time ago we sawthe betrayal of the mine workers 'by the general councilin the general strike of May, 1926, which was also car-ried on under the slogan of maintaining the shorterwork-day (seven-hour day for the miners).

p , the last quarter century we can say thatthe Amsterdam International has proved itself to be

not an organ of struggle but an organization of shame-ful collaboration with capital, an organization that doesnot lead the trade unions against the capitalist systembut rather serves to protect that system.

The flourishing period of capitalism and of imperial-ism gave the Amsterdam International the appearanceof power and strengthened the illusory belief of the la-boring masses in the possibility of a peaceable settle-ment of social problem's. But the advancing decay ofcapitalism in the present period is destroying the trustof the working class in Amsterdam. It is only due tothe revolutionary wing, which, in spite of all the split-ting attempts of the reformists continuing unto this day,is fighting for the unity of the world trade union move-ment, that the Amsterdam International still maintainsitself as an organizational whole. Amsterdam certainlyhas no claim to being the only representative and theonly leader of the international trade union movement.Only when the workers will succeed in uniting both ofthe existing international centers, Amsterdam and theR. I. L. U., as well as the trade unions remaining out-side of any international organization, into one singleworld center will there be created a leading fighting or-gan of the trade union movement.

On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary, in theepoch of intensified class struggle, in the period of thegigantic battles of the English proletariat, the interna-tional trade union movement must formulate as its im-mediate tasks:

1. Class struggle against capital until victory!Overthrow of the capitalist system!

2. Struggle against every form of class colla-boration!

3. Uncompromising struggle against opportunism,against reformism of all varieties!

4. For the unity of the international trade unionmovement!

600 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 601

5. BACK INTO THE TRADE UNIONS! IN DE-

FENSE OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DE-

MANDS OF THE WORKING CLASS!

In the trade unions—bitter struggle against any distor-

tion of their class character.

Only by following in the glorious tradition of the FirstInternational whose teachings have already lead to thevictory of the Russian proletariat and will lead to thetriumph of the world proletariat when will the interna-tional trade union movement realize these slogans.

The Steel-Making Minerals(Continued from page 595)

imperialist powers and for the exploitation and oppres-sion of the toiling masses of the "backward" countries.But even this limited "Anglo-American understanding"is too preposterous for words. The rubber situationought to show Mr. Spurr the possibilities of such an "un-derstanding." What will the understanding be about?About the control of the nickel resources of Canada,tungsten resources of China, the vanadium supply of

Peru, or the chrome deposits of Cuba? These are pre-cisely the battlefields of British and American capitaland to talk of an "understanding," even temporary andinsecure, in the present international situation, is ab-surd. Imperialism permits of no understandings; impe-rialism means bitter competitive struggle, and war isbut the continuation of the same struggle with otherweapons.

The Proletarian Revolution.

The basic contradiction of imperialism can only besolved thru the destruction of imperialism, thru the sup-planting of capitalist anarchy by a consciously plannedand rational economy on a world scale, thru the proleta-rian revolution. Then and then only will it be possibleto integrate the undeveloped regions of the earth intothe unified system of world economy without the de-struction of productive forces without the exploitationand oppression of the masses, without the butchery ofmillions. Then only will a really unified world economybe possible. This is the moral of the story of the steel-making minerals.

The Socialist Party and Its "Principles"By J. Mindel

rpHE Socialist Party of the United States upon its or-ganization laid strong claims of being a working class

party, a political party of the workers based upon theMarxian theory of the class struggle.

How true are these claims now? Have they any realbasis at the present time? Do the recent decisions andactivities of the Socialist Party in any way substantiateits old claims? An examination of the organization,activities and recent decisions of this party will provethat any present claims of the Socialist Party to being aparty of the working class are without foundation.

In addition to its organizational demoralization theSocialist Party is completely demoralized ideologically.Ask the Socialist Party where it stands on this or thatimportant question of the day and you will find thatVictor Berger has one opinion, Hilquit another, and theparty as a whole has no stand at all.

The leaders of the Socialist Party have each and everyone of them their individual conception of the problemsconfronting the American workers and of their solutionThe party itself cannot find a common language and acollective solution for most important problems of anational or international character. Conventions of theparty are adjourned without having taken a stand onthe most vital and imperative questions of the hourFor example, the last national convention evaded thequestion of prohibition and voted to "study" the Leagueof Nations. The Socialists proudly point to their unityand to the peacefulness of their gatherings. But thispeace is the result of impotence—the peace of the grave-yard; quiet secured not only at the cost of vitality, buteven at that of life itself.

Why the S. P. Split.

The mass of the membership of the Socialist Partywas always more class conscious than its leadership.Dramatic manifestations of this difference were ex-hibited in 1919.

In its train of ruin and devastation the World Waralso brought glory—glory to the working class. The-working class not only swept the remnants of feudalisminto the discard in most European countries but evenchallenged the power of capitalism; it declared waron the capitalist state and won at least one gloriousvictory. It completely defeated the capitalist class ofRussia.

The crowning glory of this victory was the establish-ment of a Soviet Government in Russia. In the SovietUnion the working class, under the leadership of theCommunist Party of Russia, is forging the life of a newsociety, of Communism.

The Russian Revolution was not the only serious rebel-lion of the workers. For a moment a victorious prole-

tariat raised its banner in Hungary and in Bavaria—even in Germany, where, for a short while, not onlywas the monarchy swept away, but the whole bourgeoisparliament with its ministers of state came to a crash.*But the social-democratic leaders in those countries be-trayed the revolution into the hands of the capitalists.This greatest betrayal in history of a class by its leadersopened the eyes of the revolutionists in the AmericanSocialist Party to the dangers of reformism within itsranks. Consequently, the membership demanded" a re-vision of the program and a change in leadership. TheNational Executive Committee, headed by Berger andHilquit, determined to flout the will of the membership—and when they were ousted from leadership by anelection they decided to expel the revolutionists fromthe party, though these revolutionists were the over-whelming majority of the party.

In the year of 1919 the Socialist Party had 104,822members; in 1920, after the expulsions, 26,776; in 1923.12,000; and in 1926 only 10,000 members. This lastnumber is taken from O'Neal's article in Current His-tory August, 1925. But even this number is padded.

Numerically small parties are not always weak par-ties. Revolutionary working class parties are very oftenweakened by the onslaught of the enemy. Russia underthe Czar, Germany under Bismark's exception laws, hadnumerically weak proletarian revolutionary parties.Nevertheless they emerged strong and powerful.

What a Marxian Party Should Be.

The Socialist Party still claims to be a Marxian Party.Marx himself formulated the requirements of a revolu-tionary proletarian party. He declares that:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand

practically the most advanced and resolute sectionof the working class parties of every country, that

section which pushes forward all others; on theother hand, theoretically, they have over the great

. mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly un-

derstanding the line of march, the conditions, and

the ultimate general results of the proletarian move-ment!"

We do not want to be too hard on the gentlemen ofthe Socialist Party and demand resoluteness of them,but we must insist on theoretical clarify at least.

The capitalist world is living thru the stage of impe-rialism. A mad scramble on the part of the great capi-talist states is going on for a place to invest their ever-growing surplus capital, for the control of raw materialsand for the monopoly of the world market. Our terres-trial globe is monoplized. A permanent struggle for aredivision is going on. Colonial wars are being con-

602 W O R K E R S M O N T H L " ? N O V E M B E R , 1926 603

stantly waged. China and other countries are the preyo£ the imperialist and are preparing to defend them-selves. All capitalist powers constantly rattle the swordand a new world cataclysm is impending.

What program have the Socialists to meet this danger?How do they expect to avert the catastrophe or exploitit for the benefit of the proletarian revolution?

For a Gentlemanly Revolution.

It would be futile to look for an answer in the platformof the Socialistist Party. The only salvation proposedby the official Socialist is voting for the Socialist Partyticket in the elections. Let us see what the leaders ofthe Socialist Party have to say. Norman Thomas, inhis pamphlet, "The Challenge of War," has this to say:

"How can we prevent war save by « revolutionwhich in itself will involve war? The Communist,the most militant wing of Socialists, generally be-lieve that such a revolution must come. They areagainst pacifism, not because they love violence, butbecause they see no other way to get lasting peace.Many of them believe that the second World Warwill be the first World Revolution.

"Such a belief, as we have previously pointed out,is made by the nature of modern war a counsel ofdespair. More than that, it does little justice to thepossibilities of such peaceful progress as is takingplace with the growth of labor and Socialist Partiesand finally of NON-VIOLENT COERCION (my em-phasis, J. M.) as a method of constructive revolution."

The Reverend Dr. Thomas is not adverse to the ideaof revolution, but he likes his revolution to be a gentle-man's revolution, one of the nice and orderly kind,starting, perhaps, with a prayer.

Mr. Thomas declares:

"It is rather by the strike than by the sword thatlabor has won its victories. It is by the generalstrike that European labor at the great Hague Con-ference in December 1922, resolved to oppose a newoutbreak of international war."

Did Dr. Thomas notice that the "non-violent coercion"of the general strike in England was met by the capi-talist state by a mobilization of all its forces and adeclaration of war on the strikers? Is he aware of thefact that the leaders of the strike—his heroes of thoSecond International—betrayed the workers? Did itoccur to Mr. Thomas that there cannot be a peacefulstrike because the peace of the strike is always disturbedby the war machinery of the capitalist state? But thereis another important point. Whom did Mr. Thomas'"non-violent coercion" want to coerce, and for what?Does he want to coerce the capitalist state to abdicatein favor of a proletarian state? He must know that thisis Utopian. Or does he want to coerce the capitaliststate machinery to function as a proletarian state? Thatis even more than Utopian. So much os is this impos-sible that even the "peaceful coercion" of the generalstrike itself raised many necessities which any capitalist

government would refuse to meet. The strikers mustmeet them. They must thus organize functions for theproletariat which (for the capitalists) are the functionsof the capitalist state. The workers' exigencies of tthestrike force the workers to create their own governmentapparatus, so to speak. Thus they are bound to comeinto conflict with the apparatus of the capitalist state.And does the reverend gentleman perceive that a gen-eral strike at the outbreak of war means a mobilizationof the workers as against the capitalist mobilization?—that this would be the prelude to a revolution—a realrevolution without prayers? Mr. MacDonald, one of theleaders of the international of Mr. Norman Thomas, isfully aware of it, and this is the reason for his betrayal.

O'Neal Solves the Problem.Now let us hear another authority of the Socialist

Party. Mr. James O'Neal, in his "Labor and the NextWar," lets us in on the secret of "The Socialist Solution."

"We want peace, security, enjoyment and happi-ness, but these are phantoms under this new orderof world imperialism. WAR WILL ALWAYSBROOD OVER EVERY HOUSEHOLD, THEGHASTLY WAR OF CHEMICALS AND GAS. Likethe peoples of Europe for nearly two generations,we will know that war is coming, but will neverknow the date of its arrival. WE HAVE NO CHOICEIN MAKING THE DECISION. IT IS MADE FORUS BY THE IMPERIALIST DIPLOMATS WHOWORK IN SECRET AND WHO SERVE THEGREAT POWERS OF FINANCE AND CAPITAL.What are we going to do about it? That is a bigquestion."

Mr. O'Neal answers his questions as follows:

"Why should the combination (he means thegreat trusts) END AT ITS PRESENT STAGE ofmastery for a few? (My emphasis, J. M.) Why nota still greater combination; the nation itself, organ-ized in its collective capacity, relieving the mastersof ownership, just as the slave owners were re-lieved(?) of their ownership? If through the ballotour fathers and their sons could make class owner-ship lawful, we can make national ownership for thewelfare of all lawful."

The "historian" and "Marxian," ONeal, made the dis-covery that capitalist private property was invented bylaw. We know that O'Neal neither knows nor acceptsMarx. But he could consult such authorities as Gus-tavus Meyers and find out that primitive capitalist ac-cumulation in America, as everywhere, is based uponforcible appropriation (of the Indian), upon the spolia-tion and exploitation of the public domains, etc

Putting Over the League of Nations.

Closely connected with the question of war and impe-rialism is the question of the League of Nations.

The great powers, England, Prance and Japan, afterthe World War, perceived that the imperialistic robber-ies could not toe carried on in the future with the sameopen brutality as in the past. The aversion to war on

the part of the great masses of workers and petty bour-geois was great.

The desire for peace, for an everlasting peace, wasimemnse. The cry: "No more wars, peace without an-nexation, peace without indemnities,' was the cry ofthe masses. The rulers of the great capitalist nationsunderstood that this cry had to be met and they letWilson serve them as well at making peaoe as at wagingwar. The "14 points" became the slogan of the day."Make the world safe for democracy (capitalism)!"

Wilson took the lead in covering the shameful peacewith a fig leaf—the League of Nations. Under the coverof this fig leaf the great imperialist powers could, for thetime being, divide the world, subjugate nations, levyindemnities and create new caricature nations. Underthe cover of the league they could blockade and wagewar on Soviet Russia. The Socialist leadership of alllands, being more interested in capitalism than in revo-lution, began cheering at the fig leaf and assuring theworkers that this was the real thing. Later on, theLeague of Nations was used by the Allies to saddle theDawes plan onto Germany. Mr. McDonald was the of-ficiating minister who blessed the German workers intothis new exploitation slavery. Here the League ofNations appeared as the godfather of permanent starva-tion of the German proletariat.

American imperialism does not yet need a fig leaf.It is harmful for its interests to get into any closealliance on a formally equal footing with English, Frenchand other imperialist powers. America emerged fromthe World War a super-power. Making the world safefor democracy was a profitable business for the Americancapitalists. They were making money, enlarged andconcentrated their industry; monoplized markets andsolidified their finance capital. American imperialismfound the world divided into mandatorial colonies andspheres of influence. But it wanted to get a foothold inall parts of the globe for investments, for control of rawmaterial, and for markets for its manufactured goods.And the American government made known the needsof its financiers and capitalists. It proclaimed two oppo-site policies at once: (1) The Monroe Doctrine—theclosed door policy applied to North, South and CentralAmerica. These territories are considered a monopolyfor imperialists of the United States, closed to all otherimperialist powers. (2) An open door policy for the restof the world, giving United States imperialism an equalright to the exploitation of those countries in whichEuropean and Japanese imperialism previously had amonopoly. England, France and Japan were compelledto give in. So we have our finger in the oil pie of Mosul,our foot on the resources of China and our capitalistscan ply their trade in every nook and corner of theworld, getting concessions and monopolizing natural re-sources. The only exception is the Soviet Union, butthat is another story.

The Socialist Party seemed to have taken a stand onthe question of the League of Nations in 1919. In theManifesto of the Socialist Party published in 1919, wefind the following statement regarding the League.

"The true aim of this alliance of capitalist powersis to safeguard their plunder, to bully and dominatethe weak nations, to crush proletarian governmentsand to thwart everywhere the movements of theworking class.

"It is the world wide struggle between the work-ing class and the capitalist class which dictatedthe decisions of the Versailles Conference. This isclearly shown on the one hand by the desperateattempt to crush Soviet Russia and by the destruc-tion of Socialist Finland and of Soviet Hungary, andon the other hand by its recognition of the un-socialistic coalition government of Germany.

"The so-called League of Nations is the capitalistblack international against the rise of the workingclass. It is the conscious alliance of the capitalistsof all nations against the workers of all nations.'

Well, our readers will say, here you have caught theSocialist Party having a position at last. Yes. Butour Socialist Party got frightened at its own clarity, andhastened to remedy the calamity.

Whitewashing the Black International.

In 1926, Hilquit supports the point of view held by aportion of the American capitalists—that the League ofNations is good. Berger, on the other hand, represent-ing the point of view of the petty bourgeoisie says theLeague is bad. And the Socialist Party as a whole,between Hilquit and Berger, is deprived of any position.You can be a Socialist, although you are for the "blackinternational." And you can be a socialist although youare against the "peace breeding" League.

Now the first question naturally is: Where does the So-cialist Party stand on this question? The second is:Were the leaders of the Socialist Party dishonest in1919 and were they only playing on the sentiments oftheir membersthip, or are they dishonest now? If theywere stating the truth then, why revoke it now? Ifthey tell the truth now, why did they lie then? Is allof this caused by senility and disintegration of the So-cialist Party or by the desire on the part of the leader-ship to openly serve the capitalist class?

The situation is basically the same in 1926 as it wasin 1919. The imperialist governments are suppressingthe working class. They are subjugating and wagingwar on the small nations and threatening Soviet Russiain 1926 as they did in 1919.

The Socialist Party wants to be considered as a work-ing class party, as a party based on Marxian principles.Such a party must not only prominently participate inthe struggles of the working class in its own countrybut must "always and everywhere represent the inter-est of the movement as a whole." It cannot be for theworkers at home—and against the workers abroad.What is then the present attitude of the Socialist Partytowards the struggles of the working class of the SovietUnion?

The Soviet Union.

The vehement lying and vulgar attacks of the "social-ist" Jewish Daily Forward and more "gentlemanly" vitu-

604 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 605

peration of the New Leader, the shameful statements ofVictor Berger in congress, prove conclusively that theSocialist leadership singly and collectively use all andevery means to discredit the workers government andare consciously helping the enemies of Soviet Russia.

The Socialist Party long ago pledged its support tothe Soviet government. In one of its manifestos of longago it states: "We, the organized Socialist Party ofAmerica, pledge our support to the revolutionary work-ers of Russia in the maintenance of their Soviet gov-ernment." Hilquit had the following to say: "It isabundantly clear that a proletarian regime must at alltimes maintain an efficient and adequate organization toprotect its conquests and that it must be particularlyalert and determined in the early period of its existence,when counter-revolutionary capitalist attacks are likelyto be the most frequent and dangerous.

"A whole-hearted support of Soviet Russia by the ad-vanced workers everywhere is dictated not only by theirnatural sentimental attachment for the first Socialistrepublic, but also by their direct class interests." (FromMarx to Lenin, page 106).

The working class must support Soviet Russia. Anattack upon the Soviet Union means an attack upon thewhole working class. Why, then, does Mr. Hilquit andthe other leaders of his party, together with the restoi the reactionary leadership of American labor, attackand malign the working class of the Soviet Union, theirgovernment and their leadership?

The Socialist Party of America has lost every claim tobeing a Marxian party. Its theoretical foundation is theideology of the petty bourgeoisie. Like this latter ithates the proletariat and fears the big bourgeoisie. Tocurry favor with the big bourgeoisie it tries to deliver

the working class to it gagged and bound. Its betrayalof the working class is at the same time the fruit of itsfear of it and its proof of servility to the big bourgeoisie.Its political position is no position at all. It is for andagainst certain questions at the same time, just as theparticular interests or even groundless sentiments of thedifferent sections of the party may react to such a ques-tion.

It is a twentieth century replica of that social-democ-racy, of which Marx wrote in his Eighteenth Brumai re :

"The essential characteristic of social-democracyis as fol lows: Democratic repub l ican inst i tut ionsare demanded as a means, not for the abo l i t ion oftwo extremes, capital and wage labor , but for themi t iga t ion of thei r opposition, and for the transfor-mation of the i r discord into harmony. Various waysof a t ta ining this ha rmony may be advocated, and thed i f f e ren t proposals may be adorned with a more orless revolut ionary t r i m m i n g , but the substance isalways the same. The substant ial aim of social-democracy is to transform society by the democraticmethod, the transformation be ing always kept with-in the petty bourgeois orbit. . . They t h i n k thatin no other way can society be saved and the classwar averted."When Marx wrote these lines he had not only in

mind the Ledru-Rollins of France of 1848, but he fore-saw the Abe Cahans, the Victor Bergers and Morris Hil-quits of America in 1926.

There is only one immovable and solid rock islandin the midst of the unfathomable swamp of the lack ofprinciple of the Socialist Party of America—hatred forthe proletariat, fear of the bourgeoisie, both synthesizedinto abject servility to capitalism.

American Capitalism Prepares for Class WarBy Alexander Bittelman

SECRETARY MELLON came back from Europe a.while ago and was pleased to tell the reporters that

he liked Mussolini and his regime. Morgan has repeat-edly expressed the same opinion. Several more prom-inent representatives of finance, industry and govern-ment have permitted us to see their admiration for thebloody doings of the black-shirted terror.

It can thus be safely stated that the big capitalistsof the United States are in favor of fascism and standready to support it with, a good deal of their might.

This does not mean that Mellon and Morgan are readyto introduce a fascist regime in the United States atthis moment. Most likely, they are not. If any of thesedictators of America were to speak his mind freelyin public, we would probably hear something like this:

"Some day, at some stage in the development ofthe class s t ruggle , democracy may prove no longeran accepted cover for our capital ist dictatorship.At this j unc tu re the existing government apparatusmay prove inadequate for the defense of capi ta l ism.U n d e r the pressure of severe struggles of the work-ers and the general d i s in tegra t ion of the capitalistsystem, democratic i l l u s i o n s of the masses may van-ish, the police force may become demoralized, thearmy may prove not al together dependable , and theent ire v o l u m e of the oppressive and c r u s h i n g powerof the government may tu rn out to be insuf f i c i en tto cope successful ly with a large scale mass attackof the workers upon the exis t ing capital is t order.Then we must drop our mask of democracy andadopt the features of a "fascist dictatorship."In other words, the capitalists of the United States—

the same as elsewhere—are turning to good account theexperiences of the class struggle that can be derivedfrom world history in the last ten years. One mightwish that the working class showed as much anxiety tolearn from the past as does its master.

X % % % %

A LL these reflections are occasioned by a number ofdefinite and sinister moves on the part of the Ameri-

can ruling class in recent months. Here we have refer-ences to the so-called Civilian Defense machinery that isbeing built quietly up by the War Department with the"wholehearted" assistance of the municipal bodies andbig capitalists in the country.

Mayor WTalker and his municipality can claim the prizefor having been first in the field which is as it shouldbe. The great city of New York is our unofficial na-tional capital. WTall Street is there. The nerve-centerof modern capitalism, finance capital, is located on Man-hattan Island. The real bosses and dictators of thisland are concentrated in that city.

And although the official initiative came from the As-sistant Secretary of WTar MacNider, yet the people whomade the real practical beginning were the "big fellows"of New York through their puppet—Mayor Walker.

Here is how it happened. Assistant Secretary of WarMacNider, who is in charge of so-called industrial mobil-ization provided for in the national defense act, had re-quested the co-operation of several city mayors for theupbuilding of the necessary machinery for putting theseprovisions of the defense act into effect.

Forth came Mayor Walker with a proposal to create aspecial committee "on industrial co-ordination and de-fense of the city of New York" to assist the Federalgovernment in formulating plans "for industrial mobil-ization in the event of war." Secretary Davis, quite nat-urally, welcomed the proposal and expressed confidencein the ability of Walker, the committee, etc.

What kind of a committee is this going to be andwhat is it going to accomplish?

Let us quote Mayor Walker's communication to theWar Department. It says in part:

"I am selecting a representative committee, knownas the Committee on f n d u s t r i a l Co-ordinat ion andDefense of the City of New York, which wi l l be readyto co-operate with the Nat iona l Government in carry-ing out the plans for indus t r ia l defense.

What does Walker mean by "plans for industrial de-fense"? He cannot possibly mean the defense of indus-tries from a military attack by a foreign power. Thatis being taken care of by the War Department. Whathe means, and what is actually being planned, is thebuilding up of strikebreaking bodies that will step intoevery serious conflict between capital and labor to helpthe police and the military to break strikes.

That this is what is actually meant can be seen fromfurther quoting Mayor Walker. He says:

"At the same t ime I am certain that our own citywi l l be benefited by such a committee in the i rstudy of i ndus t r i a l condi t ions locally. It w i l l alsostand ready to serve in case of any nat ional calam-ity, such as earthquakes, or floods or any in ternalcrisis."

. . . Or any internal crisis. Isn't that full of mean-ing? Mayor Walker is an alert sort of individual. Be-sides, he lives in close proximity to "great" industrialleaders. He therefore knows what he is talking aboutwhen he proposes to build up civilian machinery to beused in defense of "our" industries during an "internalcrisis."

Strikes is the thing they have in mind. And to breakstrikes is what they are preparing for.

The British working class is well familiar with theO. M. S. and what it stands for. Something similar tothat is being proposed and built now in the UnitedStates.

The O. M. S., or the so-called Organizations for theMaintenance of Supplies are volunteer strike-breakingbodies pure and simple. They are semi-governmentalinstitutions made up of volunteers consisting of capi-

606

talists and their retinue. These bodies are called uponby the government to take the place of workers onstrike whenever an emergency exists. The 0. M. S.has been used 'by the British government—Liberal andConservative—in every serious industrial conflict sincethe late imperialist war.

Even more obvious becomes the strike-breaking na-ture of these committees for industrial defense when weconsult on this matter the opinion of the capitalistpress. Some of the papers are quite outspoken. Forinstance, the Boston Transcript, in reporting the Walkerproposal to the War Department, has the following tosay:

"The Walker Committee designed primarily tohandle such matters as are not taken care of di-rectly in the Industrial Mobilization Plan of theWar Department, and to handle such emergenciesin peace time as might paralyze the city's activitiesand do injury to the civilian population."

And what may these peace-time emergencies be, saysthe Boston Transcript:

"Earthquakes, floods, strikes—such things as thesemay produce a situation in New York City or anyother metropolis comparable to a war emergency,and requiring similar heroic measures to keep theharm to industry and to individuals down to a mini-mum."

This paper, as well as many others, already sees thegreat possibilities contained in this plan for strengtheningcapital against labor. And remember—not in times ofwar but in times of peace. Strikes are frankly listedin the same class as earthquakes and floods, as emerg-encies requiring "heroic" measures to keep them down.Next thing we will hear is a call for "heroic" volunteersto fill these emergency bodies for strike-breaking pur-poses.

The British experience with the 0. M. S. all overagain.

This enterprising Boston paper that we quoted aboveis making sure that the home of the textile and shoemagnates, and incidentally the home of our great presi-dent, does not fall too far behind the home of WallStreet. The Transcript assumes the championship forthe formation of a Walker Committee in Boston andimmediately it receives the blessings and the promise ofco-operation of the. War Department.

Boston too will have an industrial defense committeewhich will enable its manufacturers to exploit stillmore brutally the workers of New England. And whatwill this committee be worrrying about?

"More particularly, New England is interested thatthe boot and shoe and the textile industries continueto operate normally,"

says the Boston Transcript. So this is what the pro-posed committee will busy itself with. Like the com-mittee in New York and in other important industrialcenters, it will build up elaborate machinery to forestall,combat and break strikes. It will create a new semi-governmental organ of capitalist power to fight moreeffectively the labor movement. These constitute the be-ginnings of fascism in the United States. ,

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

What are the essential characteristics of fascism?It is the building up and setting into motion by the

capitalists of extra-governmental machinery, made up ofvolunteers reliable in a capitalist sense, to supplementthe official capitalist government in the defense of thepresent order, and to supersede and take the place ofthe official government when the latter is no longerable to cope with the rising working class.

American capitalism is not facing revolution but itis faced with a perspective full of intense labor strug-gles. It is this perspective that is moving Americancapitalism to what is called "industrial preparedness."

Competition on the world market, according to thelatest reports of the Department of Commerce, is be-coming more bitter every day. The recent formationof the European steel trust including France, Germanyand Belgium,'the prospective formation of another steeltrust, which will combine with the first one, includingSweden, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Roumania, Hungaryand Jugo-Slavia, the negotiations now under way forthe formation of a huge European chemical trust, theseand several more developments including the growingopposition of European capitalism to the domination ofAmerican imperialism, are moving the American capi-talists to adopt various measures of retaliation. Andamong them is the policy of cutting wages and weak-ening unions as a means of cheapening the cost ofproduction.

Every now and then the cry is raised that wages inthe United States are too high. The demand is persis-tently put forward by spokesmen of big capital tobring wages more in accord with wages paid Europeanworkers. This is the goal that American capital has setitself to achieve.

But the American capitalists know full well that la-bor will resent and resist any such wage cutting cam-paigns. Even with the help of the reactionary tradeunion bureaucracy, which will undoubtedly help thecapitalists and not the workers, the capitalists couldnot start out on a wage cutting campaign such as isbeing contemplated without first carrying out a thoroughcampaign of preparedness. This campaign of "indus-trial preparedness" is now being initiated through theWalker committees.

What is the purpose of these committees?They will strive to unify the capitalist interests of the

big industrial centers. They will create centralizeddirection and leadership in the class struggle on thecapitalist end of the game. They will survey conditionsand outline strategy to defeat the plans of the workersand the unions. They will build volunteer organizationsto supply the force and violence, the strike-breakers andthe thugs with which to fight the workers. They willstrive to develop into regular fascist organizations tobe ready for every emergency in the class struggle.

American capital is preparing for war. War againstits imperialist rivals. War against its "own" workingclass.

American labor must answer this move of the enemyby initiating a preparedness campaign of its own, thechief measure being organizing the unorganized.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 607

The Present Condition of Agriculturein the Soviet Union

By Karl Reeve

"M"OT long ago, in an unsigned news dispatch dated•'•" from Riga, published in a New York newspaper, Isaw a report that Zinoviev was about to set up a newgovernment in the Leningrad district. Almost as brazenlies have been indulged in with regard to the difficultiesin the government's grain collecting campaign.

Industry and Agriculture Reach Pre-War Level.

As a matter of fact, both Soviet industry and agricul-ture have now practically reached the stage of pre-warproduction. As far as the well-being of the peasantsis concerned, especially the poor and middle peasants,they are a great deal better off than in pre-war times.In the Pravda of March 2, 1926, we learn from the pro-ceedings of the Third Russian Agricultural -Conferencethat "already the peasant seeding area has been raisedto 87 per cent of the pre-war level in 1925, and to 91 percent of the pre-war level of production."

One great goal in the progress of the Soviet Union hasbeen reached. The horrible effects of the world war,of the civil war, economic blockade and famine whichwrecked both industry and agriculture have been over-come.

"The economic situation in the Soviet Union," saidPravda (March 10, 1926), "in spite of the poor harvest(1924), with its effect on the development of our exporttrade, a visible growth was shown in agriculture. Thegross agricultural production in 1924, increased almost 8per cent in comparison with 1923, along the line ofanimal husbandry and technical culture. . . Last yearwas one of rapid development, with great improvementin the conditions of the working class and peasantry. • .Agricultural production for 1924-25 increased, accordingto pre-war value 76 per cent, according to present value,71 per cent." ,

Industry also has reached close to the pre-war level.Djerzhinsky, in one of his last 'speeches, before the plenumof the Central Council of Trade Unions (Pravda, Feb. 9,1926), said, "The increase in production for 1924-25over 1923-24 was 64 per cent. The increase for the pre-ceedlng years, 1921-22 was 50 per cent and 1922-23, 45per cent and 1923-24 was 30 per cent. . . The totalpercentage of increase is as follows (for 1924-25): inthe heavy industries, 55 per cent; in the light indus-tries, 45 per cent. In the previous year the increasewas, in the heavy industries, 53 per cent and in the lightindustries 75 per cent." Rykoff, in a speech on thepresent situation, said: "The output of our industriesincreased 63 per cent last year over the previous year."F. Vinoff, writing in June (English Inprecorr, No. 47),said, "A general increase in production has become

almost a stereotyped phenomenon in the Soviet Union.No month passes which does not bring with it an in-crease in industrial production such as pre-war capital-ism, when it was still sound, only reached with difficultyin a whole year." The latest figures show that this month-ly increase in production has continued, the productionin the large scale industries of the state increasing inApril at the annual rate over March of 39 per cent andas compared to April, 1925, increasing from 50-60 percent.

Present Problems.

The Soviet government has this year, as in previousyears, faced difficult problems and solved them. In thefirst place the government miscalculated the amount ofgrain which could be collected after last year's harvestand consequently made incorrect estimates of the abil-ity to import goods from abroad. Rykoff says: "Wemade a number of mistakes and miscalculations in ourgrain puchases. As a result we planned to live on whatproved to be beyond our means."

One of the reasons why the peasants did not give upthe amount of grain which was expected was that theywere more prosperous and were in a position to buildup for themselves a reserve. The harvest on the wholewas a good one. Grain totalled 65 million tons as com-pared to 48 million tons in 1924. The government hadplanned to export and to bring to the city markets 13million tons. However, only 42 per cent of this amountwas collected by January 1, instead of the estimated70 per cent. The government estimates were too op-timistic.

Rykoff, speaking of the economic difficulties, said at ameeting of the Leningrad Soviet on March 3, 1926: "Atthe end of the first quarter of 1925-26, we entered a periodof economic difficulties in foreign and domestic trade,fuel and transport. . . The main factors in these diffi-culties began to grow more and more in August and Sep-tember, 1925, when, guided by the prospects of a goodharvst, our large plans began to be brought into life."

This economic strain centered attention on certainfundamental aspects of the present problems of the gov-ernment. These problems included: (a) a disproportionbetween agriculture and industry, industrial productionbeing behind agricultural demand and consequently ah u n g e r for commodi t ies ; (b) a lack of sufficient organ-ization of the grain collecting apparatus; (c) an un-favorable foreign trade balance; (d) high prices, the re-tail prices being disproportionally above wholesale prices,because of the great demand for industrial products; (e)a slight surplus of the amount of money in circulation

608

over the amount of commodities; (f) further differenti-ation of the classes among the peasantry and growth ofvillage bourgeoisie. ,

The fundamental cause of these difficulties is the needfor further industrialization of the country. The SovietU n i o n Month ly for June, 1926, states: "Owing to the dis-proportion between industrial and agricultural output itis impossible to utilize fully the agricultural resources ofthe country by the export of grain and raw materials."Industry is still unable to satisfy the growing demandsof the population, 90 per cent rural, for commodities.

We speak of a radical change in the economiccharacter of the country, of a long process of con-version from an agricultural-industrial country to an in-dustrial agricultural country, requiring many years."

The shortage of goods was accentuated by the growthof the purchasing power in the town and village, butespecially in the village. The peasant is now producingmore for himself than in pre-war times and is not bur-dened with czarist taxes and with a land famine. Con-sequently, he has more money, which he is unable toturn into goods in the desired quantity because of theshortage.

The latest figures of the Gosplan show that the dis-proportion between agriculture and industry is beingovercome and that industry is increasing its productionat a faster rate than agriculture. Bukharin and Rykoffhave articles on this subject in the July and August Eng-lish Inprecorr which also show that the proportion ofprivate trade to trade state is steadily declining.

Measures to Solve Difficulties.

The Soviet government immediately took steps to over-come these difficulties. "The development of industryand the industrialization of the country altogether is thedecisive task" in order to overcome the demand for com-modities and complete the development of socialization,says the resolution of the Central Committee Plenum ofthe Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the eco-nomic situation (April, 1928). The government took upthe task of: (a) bringing about "an appropriate relationbetween the money in circulation in the country and themasses of goods in circulation," permitting an increase ofissue only when the purchasing power of the rublecan be raised; (b) achieving a reduction in retail prices,especially through the co-operatives; (c) maintainingthe process of constantly increasing wages, but increas-ing the productivity of labor by use of better equip-ment, etc.; (d) insuring the accumulation of a supply ofcapital for a reserve with which to increase the scaleof industrial production; (e) forming a reserve forforeign trade.

Strict economy was put into force in order to makeboth ends meet. The import plan for the current fiscalyear ending September 30, was cut, as was the foreigntrade program which however, was under the revisedestimate to be 12 per cent greater than in 1924-25. "Weplan only a 35 per cent growth in industrial production,"said Rykoff "But even with this our growth has beengreater than in any other country in Europe."

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Results of Soviet Tactics

The difficulties experienced, according to the latestfigures, seem definitely to have been overcome. Thiswas to he expected. Both the harvest of 1925 and thepresent harvest have been successes. The entire sownarea in 1925 increased 5 per cent, the crop approachingpre-war volume. The grain area increased 4 per cent,the greatest crop increase having occurred in the North-ern Caucasus, where this is being written. The harvestthis year is reported as satisfactory, both for the winterand spring crops. Drought did not occur and the cropsare now being taken in with an average yield per dessia-tine (2.7 acres) and an increase in the area sown.

All the statistics this year show that more grain hasbeen collected, that the foreign trade balance is nowfavorable, and that all phases of economy are in a healthycondition. The accumulation of grain this year as com-pared to the first months of 1925 has increased 80.3 percent. In March, the improvement was noticeable. Notonly was a larger quantity of grain collected but pricesbecame more stable, some of them declining.

In March, for the first time for a number of months,there was a favorable trade balance. Because of thebad harvest in 1924, an unfavorable balance was record-ed, and for the first eight months of 1925 grain and flourwere actually imported. In March, exports exceeded im-ports. This was achieved not by cutting off imports, butby increasing exports by almost 25 million rubles ascompared with March, 1925. In March, also, industrialproduction created new records. The value of the totalproduction of industry was 312.6 million pre-war rubles,almost 5 per cent more than in February, 1926, and 40per cent more than March, 1925. Another indication thatthe Soviet government is accomplishing the desired re-sults is that in March the comparative increase of heavyindustry is considerably greater than light industry. Thefigures for April and May are fully as encouraging. Notonly was industrial production increased, but also theproductivity of labor, the average monthly productionreaching 167 pre-war rubles compared to 161 in March,an increase of 4 per cent whereas in the same monthof last year there was a decrease of 3 per cent.

The prices of agricultural products again declined inApril as they did in March, showing that the Soviet cam-paign to push down prices is achieving success. Theprice of wheat per pood was 1.30 in March comparedto 1.27 in April and the wholesale prices for flour de-creased 4 per cent. The amount, of money in circulationincreased only 1.5 per cent in April while the turnover ofgoods increased from 12 to 14 per cent showing that theamount of commodities and money on the market areapproaching a level.

The regime of economy has produced a great saving,the total savings of all trusts and syndicates, from Aprilto September are expected to amount to nearly 24 mil-lion rubles. This in no way affects the tendency ofwages to increase. The production of grain in Aprilwas 150 per cent greater than in April, 1925, nearly 50per cent of this amount being wheat (for further figuressee English Inprecorr of June 17, 1926).

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 609

Thus the Soviet government has been able in a re-markably short time to put into effect its program andto achieve results showing the soundness of its socialisteconomy, the resourcefulness of the country's leadingparty, the Communist Party, and the satisfaction of thepopulation with the Soviet regime.

Inheritance of the Soviet Government.

TT is no common sight in the Northern Caucasus to seea camel and a horse harnessed side by side plough-

ing. Nearby, on a government farm or peasant col-lective, can be seen the latest type American tractors, inmany cases run 24 hours a day in the busy season. The:method of ploughing with a camel or a team of bicks(oxen) was inherited by the Soviet government from the

;pre-revolutionary days. The tractor method of farm-ing, on model government farms and collectives, is evi-dence of the fruits of the Soviet government's systemof industrializing and socializing agriculture.

Pick up any book about the imperialist Russia of thedays before 1914 and you will see such statements asthe following. "The country was agriculturally back-ward and there was no capital or modern methods.The government gave no help to the poor peasants.""Famine in Russia is about as periodic as it is in Chinaalthough China is only half the size of Russia and hastwice as large a population. . . In 1912, according tothe official registration figures about 82 per cent of thepopulation suffered from some ailment or other." (Mau-rice G. Hindus, The Russian Peasant and the Revolu-t ion) .

A conservative American organization, which duringthe famine co-operated with the Red Cross and the Amer-ican Relief administration, the Commission on RussianRelief of the National Information Bureau, said in itsreport of February, 1923: "Russian agriculture has beenslow to develop. For half a century after the emancipa-tion of the serfs in 1861, the cultivated area hardly in-creased although the population multiplied two and ahalf times. Peasant farming was generally of a loworder. Wasteful methods were common."

Even the conservative histories of Russia dealing withpre-war times establish that the Russian peasant wasmost backward. Not only were his methods of farmingand implements primitive, but in addition, he was con-stantly impoverished by the imperialist government'staxes, and was bound to the village and harnessed with

obligations which it was often impossible to meet by theold landlord controlled commune or mir. The serfswere "emancipated" in Russia in 1861. At that time theywere required by law to pay a heavy "redemption" priceto the landlords whom they had served, to be paidin 49 yearly installments totalling 1.5 billions of rubles.When this was finally abolished, after 1905, the peasanthad paid more in fees than his land was worth. Thepeasant's history is one long history of too many taxesand not enough land. The peasant was constantly onthe verse of starvation.

The Soviet Union, as is well known, inherited not onlvthis backward system of agriculture, which had r'orscores of years been imposed upon an uneducated and ig-norant peasant population, consisting of 90 per cent ofthe total population of the country, but an industryand an agriculture wrecked by years of war which wasfollowed by civil war and famine. "The civil war killedsome seven million adult males of the peasantry andseriously maimed fully as many." "The civil war wasa Sherman's march to the sea spread over seven years,"say the famine relief organizations.

Tn the world war 17 million men and two millionhorses had been mobilized in the three years from 1914to 1917. Railways had broken down and the import ofagricultural machinery went down from 95,200 metrictons in 1914 to only 4,100 in 1915. Then came thecounter-revolutionary campaigns of such white guardistsas Denikin and Wrangel and then the famine of 1921.The number of horses fell from 31 million in 1916 to19 y2 million in 1923, of which 16 million were farmhorses. In many provinces over half the horses werelost to the peasantry. Cattle decreased from 50 millionin 1911 to 33 million in 1921. There were of courseseverer losses in the famine areas. The British TradeUnion Delegation report says: "The loss of agriculturalmachines can only be roughly estimated at about 50 percent." ,

In 1920, 60 per cent of the pre-war area was undercultivation. In 1921 it was 54 per cent. The BritishTrade Unionists were able to report in 1924: "So muchhas been done that the government outlay on agriculturalrestoration is now annually changing its character fromtt-.at of relief and re-equipment to that of reconstructionby general electrification and technical education."

Agriculture in the Soviet Union has now reached theprc-v/ar level and tractorization and industrialization ~reon the order of the day.

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

p l l l l l l l l l l l i l l l i m i l l l l i m i n n i l l l l l i m i l l l l i n i l H I I i m i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i m

dan

illlllllllimUllllimiimimilllNllllllllllllIlllimilllllllllllllillllllillllllllH^

I.POLITICAL economy is the theoretical analysis of mod-

ern bourgeois society . . .* * *

. . . Economics does not deal with things, but withrelationships between people, and in the last analysis,between classes; these relationships, however, are al-ways bound up with things and appear as things. Thisconnection, which in isolated cases has certainly dawn-ed upon this or that economist, was first revealed byMarx in its validity for the whole of economics, and hethereby made the most difficult Questions so clear andsimple that now even the bourgeois economists will beable to understand them.

(Engels: From a review of Marx' Critique of PoliticalEconomy published in two articles in the London GermanWeekly, "Das Volk," August 6th and £0th, 1859.)

II.A S far as I arn concerned, I can't claim to have dis-•̂ covered the existence of classes in modern societynor their strife against one another. Middle class his-torians long ago described the evolution of class strug-gles, and political economists showed the economic phy-siology of the classes. I have added as a new contri-bution the following propositions: (1) that the exist-ence of classes is bound up with certain historical phas-es of material production; (2) that the class struggleleads necessarily to the dictatorship of the proletar-iat; (3) that this dictatorship itself is but tiie transitionto the abolition of all classes and to the creation of aclassless society.

(Marx: From a letter to Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852,In the Neu Zeit, 25-2 (1906-7) p. 164.)

III.

1ITHAT is society, whatever its form may be? The** product of the reciprocal action of people. Are the

people free to choose this or that social form? By nomeans. Assume a definite stage of development of theproductive forces of mankind and you will have a de-finite form of distribution and consumption. Assumea definite stage of development of production, of dis-tribution and consumption, and you will have a definitesocial order, a definite organization of the family, ofestates or of classes; in a word, a definite bourgeoissociety. Assume a definite bourgeois society and youwill have definite political relationships which are nowthe official expression of bourgeois society. Mr. Proud-hon will never understand that for he thinks he is con-tributing something great when he appeals from thestate to society, that is, from the official concentrationof society to official society

It is superfluous to add that mankind does not freelychoose its productive forces—which are the basis of itsentire history—for every productive force is an acquir-ed force, the product of former activity. The productiveforces, therefore, are the result of applied human energy,but this energy itself is conditioned by the relationshipsin which mankind finds itself, by the already acquiredproductive forces, by the social form which exists be-fore them, which they create for themselves, which isthe creation of the preceding generation. By means ofthis simple fact, that every subsequent generation findsready the productive forces acquired by the precedinggeneration, which serve it as raw material for new pro-duction, there arises a causal relationship in humanhistory; there is formed a history of mankind which isall the more the history of mankind, the more the pro-ductive forces of mankind have grown and with themalso its social relationships. From that it follows ne-cessarily: the social history of men is always merelythe history of their individual development, whetherthey are conscious of it or not. The material relation-ships between people are the basis of all their relation-ships. These material relationships are only the ne-cessary forms in which their material and individualactivity is realized.

(Marx: Letter to Annenkoff on Proudhon, Brussels,Brussels, December 28, 1846. In: Die Neue Zeit, 31-1(1912-13, p. 823-24.)

IV.

rpHTJS, mainly because he lacks the historical knowl-edge, Mr. Proudhon has not seen: that people, in

developing their productive forces, that is, in living, en-ter into definite relationships with one another and thatthe nature of these relationships must necessarilychange with the transformation and growth of theseproductive forces. He has not seen that economic cate-gories are only abstractions of these actual relation-ships and are truths only insofar as these relationshipsexist. Thus he falls into the error of the bourgeoiseconomists who view these economic categories as eter-nal and not as historical laws, which are only laws fora definite historical stage of development, for a limitedcondition of the productive forces. Therefore, insteadof viewing the politico-economic categories as abstrac-tions of the actual, transitory, historical, social produc-tive relations, he sees, in the actual relationships bymeans of a mystical inversion, only embodiments ofthese abstractions. These abstractions themselves areformulas which have slumbered in the lap of God theFather since the creation of the world.

(Marx: Letter to Annenkoff on Proudhon. Brussels,Dec. 28, 1864. In: Die Neue Zeit, 31-1 (1912-13) p. 827.)

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 611

V.rpHE first presupposition of all human history is natur-•^ ally the existence of living human individuals. The

first historical act of these individuals by which they aredifferentiated from animals is not that they think butthat they begin to produce the i r means of l i fe .

(Marx and Engels: From the "German Ideology", onFeuerbach. 1845. In: Marx-Engels Archive Vol. 1 p. 237.)

VI.Karl Marx on Henry George.

London, June 30, 1881.,To A. F. Sorge:

Before your copy of Henry George arrived, I had al-ready received two others, one from Swinton and onefrom Willard Brown; so gave one to Engels, one to La-fargue. For today I must limit myself to formulating myopinion of the book quite briefly. Theoretically, theman is totally arriere! He hasn't understood anythnigof the nature of surplus value and therefore, followingEnglish example, tosses about in speculations on the in-dependent (verseibstsaendigten) portions of surplusvalue, which even at that have remained behind theEnglish—over the relationship of profit, rent, tax, etc.His basic dogma (Grunddogma): that everything wouldbe in order, were ground rent paid to the state (youfind isucb. payment also among the transition measurescontained in the Communist Manifesto... This view origi-nally belonged to the bourgeois economists; it wasfirst put forward (not considering similar demands at theend of the 18th century) by the first radical adherents ofRicardo directly after Ms death. In 1947 I said in mywork against Proudhon concerning this: "We under-stand that the economists such as Mill (the older one,not his son, John Stuart, who also repeats it somewhatmodifiediy), Cherbuliez, Hilditch and others, have de-manded that rent be contributed to the state to beused as payment of taxes. It is the frank expression ofthe hate which the industrial capitalist avows for theland owner who seems to him an inutility, a superfoeta-tion in the collectivity of bourgeois production."—We,ourselves, as already mentioned, took up this appropria-tion, among numerous other transition measures, which,as was also remarked in the Manifesto, are and must becontradictory in themselves.

But to make out of this desideratum of the radicalEnglish bourgeois economists the socialist panacea, todeclare this procedure as the solution of the antagon-isms confined within the present-day method of produc-tion, that was first done by Collins, a former old Napo-leonic Hussar officer born in Belgium, who blessed theworld from Paris in the last days of Guizot and in the

first of Napolenon the Little, with thick volumes on his"discovery," just as he also made the other discoverythat there is indeed no God, but to be sure an "immortal"human soul and that animals have "no emotion" If theyhad emotion, therefore soul, we would be cannibals anda kingdom of Justice on earth could never be founded.His "anti-landownership theory," together with his soul,etc., theory, is preached this year-and-a-day monthly inthe Paris "Philosophy of the Future" by his few remain-ing adherents, mostly Belgians. They call themselves"Rational Collectivi-sts" and have praised Henry George.Following them and beside them, the Prussian bankerand former lottery owner, Samter, from East Prussia, afiat head, has slapped out this "socialism" in a thickvolume.

All these "socialists" since Collins have this in com-mon that they let wage-labor, therefore, also capitalistproduction, stand, in that they want to trick themselvesor the world into believing that by the transformation ofground rents into taxes to the state, all the embarass-ments of capitalistic production will have to disappear oftheir own accord. The whole is therefore, a social-istically garnished attempt to save the capitalistic ruleand in fact to found it anew on a still wider basis thanthe present.

This cloven-foot, which is at the same time an ass'sfoot, peeps out unmistakably from the declamations ofHenry George. With him the more unforgivably sincehe would conversely have been obliged to ask himselfthe question: How did it happen that in the UnitedStates, where relatively, that is, compared with civilizedEurope, the land was open to the masses and to a cer-tain degree (again relatively) still is, capitalist economyand the corresponding enslavement of the working classhave developed faster and more shamelessly than inany other country!

On the other hand, George's book, as well as the sen-sation which it has made among you, has the signifi-cance of being a first, even if unsuccessful, attempt tofree oneself from the orthodox political economy.

For the rest, Henry George seems to know nothing ofthe history of the early American anti-renteers, who weremore practitioners than theoreticians. Otherwise he isa writer of talent (also having talent for Yankee-ad-vertising, as, for example, his article on California inthe "Atlantic" shows). He also has the repulsive arro-gance and exemption which invariably characterizes allsuch panacea-breeders.

Fraternal greetings,

Your K. Marx.

612 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY*

(Recent Literature on Marx, Engels, and Marxism in English.)

BEER, M A X : THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF KARLMARX. Translated by T. C. Partington and H. J. Sten-ning. Boston, Small Maynard, 1924. 164 pp.

COOK, A. E.: THE SOCIALISM OF KARL MARX.With a biographical sketch of the life of Karl Marx, thesocialist. Glasgow, the Plebs League Glasgow Branch,1918. 29 pp. .

COATES, ZELDA K A H A N : KARL MARX; HIS LIFEAND TEACHING. London, British Socialist Party, 1918.(Intern. Socialist Library No. 6) 31 pp.

J O H N S O N , O. M.: FORTY YEARS AFTER KARLMARX. New York, Labor News Co., 1924. 31 pp.

LORIA, A C H I L L E : KARL MARX. Authorized trans-lation from the Italian with a Foreword by Eden andCeder Paul. N. Y., Seltzer, 1920. 161 pp.

COATES, ZELDA K.: THE LIFE AND WORKS OFFREDRICK ENGELS. London, Publ. of the C. P. ofGreat Britain, 1921.

ALLAN, F. H. : THE REVIVAL OF MARXISM. In:Bankers' Magazine, London, December, 1920. pp. 701-706.

BEER, MAX: MARXISM. (Syllabus Series.) Lon-don, Labor Publishing Co. (1920?)

B E E R , M A X : A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF MARX.An introductory course for Classes and Study Circles.(Syllabus Series No. 14.) London, The Labour ResearchDepartment, 1924. 32 pp.

FORD, P.: MARX AND MARXISTS. In: Economica,No. 2 (May, 1921), pp. 147-158.

GOMEZ, MANUEL: LENIN AND THE NEW WAVEOF MARXISM, LENINISM, A MARXIAN SCIENCE. In:The Workers' Monthly. Chicago, Vol. IV, No. 5 (March,1925), pp. 221-225.

H. J.: IS MARXISM ON THE WANE? In: WesternClarion, Vancouver, No. 807 (August, 1918), pp. 6-8.

H Y N D M A N , H. M.: COMING TRIUMPH OF MARX-IST SOCIALISM. In: English Review (February, 1915),pp. 290-304.

L A R K I N , w. PASCHAL: MARXIAN SOCIALISM.(Introductory Essay by Prof. Alfred Rohilly.) Cork,Dublin, London. 1917. (University and Labor Series 3.)

LASKI, H A R O L D : KARL MARX. An Essay. Lon-don, Allen & tlnwin, 1922.

NICHOLSON, J. SHIELD: THE REVIVAL OF MARX-ISM. London, Murray, 1920. New York, Dutton, 1921.145 pp.

PORTUS, G. V.: MARX AND MODERN THOUGHT.(W. E. A. Series of Economic, Political, and SocialStudies, No. 4) . Sydney, Workers' Educational Associa-tion of N. S. W., 1921. XII, 186 pp.

*Bssed on the Bibliography of E. Czobel and P. Hajdu.—In; Marx-Engels Archiv. 1 Bd.

RUSSEL, B E R T R A N D : PROPOSED ROADS TOFREEDOM. London, Allen & Unwin. 1st ed., 1918;2nd ed., revised, 1919. pp. 23-48.

SALTER, F. R.: KARL MARX AND MODERN SO-CIALISM. London, Macmillan, 1921. 263 pp.

B U K H A R I N , N I K O L A I : HISTORICAL MATERIAL-ISM. A System of Sociology. Authorized Translationfrom the 3rd Russian Edition. New York, InternationalPublishers, 1925, xv, 318 pp.

L E C K I E , PETER T.: MATERIALIST CONCEPTIONOF HISTORY. For Beginners. A Series of Lessons.In: Western Clarion, Vancouver, 1920-1921.

MAC I V E R , A L I C E M.: SAINT-SIMON AND HIS IN-FLUENCE ON KARL MARX. In: Economica. London.No. 6, October, 1922, pp. 238-245.

P R I C E , M. P H I L I P S : SOCIALISM AS A SCIENCE,OR THE MARXIAN INTERPRETATION OF HIS-TORY. (A lecture given to the Gloucester Labour Col-lege on December 18th, 1923.) Gloucester, F. E. Curtis.32 pp.

SPARGO, J O H N : MARXIAN SOCIALISM AND RE-LIGION. New York, B. W. Huebsch, 1915.

WATON, H A R R Y : THE PHILOSOPHY OF MARX.New York, Marx-Engels Institute, 1921. 268 pp. For-merly published in: Radical Review.

W I L L I A M , M A U R I C E : THE SOCIAL INTERPRETA-TION OF HISTORY, A REFUTATION OF THE MARX-IAN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY.London, Allen & Unwin, 1922. XXXI, 307 pp.

BIRDSEYE, CLARENCE F R A N K : AMERICAN DE-MOCRACY VERSUS PRUSSIAN MARXISM; A STUDYIN THE NATURE AND RESULTS OF PURPOSIVE ORBENEFICIAL GOVERNMENT. New York and Chicago,Revell, 1920. 731 pp.

BURNS, C. DELISLE: KARL MARX AND REVOLU-TION, jln: English Keviiew (iSeptember, 1920), pp.244-253.

ABLETT, NOAH: AN OUTLINE ECONOMICSCOUSE. In: The Plebs, Vol. 10 (1918), No. 10, pp. 227-228; No. 11, pp. 246-248.

BEER, MAX: HODGSKIN AND MARX. In: The La-bor Monthly, Vol. 3 (December, 1922, pp. 378-380. (Ad:Labor Defended. By Thomas Hodgskin. London, LaborPublishing Co., 1922. First edition, anonymous, "Bya Labourer," London, 1825). ,

EMMETT, W. H.: THE MARXIAN ECONOMICHANDBOOK AND GLOSSARY (Containing definitionsof about 700 terms) with numerous corrections, explana-

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

tions and emendations of the English version of Vol. Iof "Capital." For the use of Advanced Students and Be-ginners. London, Allen & Unwin, 1925. New York, In-ternational Publishers, 1926. 350 pp.

JOSEPH, W. B.: THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUEIN KARL MARX. Oxford, University Press, 1923.176 pp.

KAUTSKY, K A R L : THE ECONOMIC DOCTRINESOF KARL MARX. Transl. by H. J. Stenning. London,A, & C. Black, 1925.

MEYENDORFF, A.: NOTES ON MARX'S PREDE-CESSORS. In: Economica, No. 14( June, 1925), pp.202-203.

NEWBOLD, J. T. WALTON: MARX AND MODERNCAPITALISM. London, British Socialist Party, 1918.(Intern. Socialist Library, No. 8). 22 pp.

SCOTT, J. W.: KARL MARX ON VALUE. London,Black, 1920. 54 pp.

613

V E B L E N , T H O R S T E T N : THE SOCIALIST ECO-NOMICS OF KARL MARX AND HIS FOLLOWERS. I.THE THEORIES OF KARL MARX. II. THE LATERMARXISM. (Reprinted from the Quarterly Journal ofEconomics. Vol. XX, Aug., 1906 Vol. XXI, Feb., 1907.)In: Th. Veblen: The Place of Science in Modern Civili-zation. New York, Huebsch, 1919. pp. 409-456.

WATON, H A R R Y : THE MARXIST. Introductionand Aid to the Study of Capital. New York, Workers'Educational Institute. 1925. 104 pp.

POSTGATE, R. W.: THE WORKERS' INTERNA-TIONAL. (The Swarthmore International Handbooks,No. 6). London, New York, 1920. 125 pp.

MARX, K A R L : SELECTED ESSAYS. New York,International Publishers, 1926. 208 pp.

\Y7T-J C^\ JTi V7 nIs YourHome or Any Other Place i

Is He a Hungarian!

Then Have HIM SUBSCRIBE to the Only Hungarian Labor Daily

THE UJ ELORE33 FIRST STREET, NEW YORK CITY

Tell Him About THE PROLETAR BOOK SHOP, Where He

Can Buy All Kinds of Books for Workers. Tell Him to Write to

The Proletar Book Shop, 33 First Street, New York City.

614 W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

The Spirit of the First AmericanRevolution

By Jay Lovestone

THE SPIRIT OF THE REVOLUTION, by John C. Fitz-patrick, Published by Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

A BOARD a train from Chicago to Pittsburgh. It is the•*"*• day before the one event that has attracted moremass attention and" interest than any other question sincethe signing of the Armistice of the last World War.

The cars are loaded to the gills, as it were. You can'tget an upper berth at a premium. Everybody is headedfor Philadelphia. Gunmen—prosperous and hard-up—congressmen, clergymen, millionaires, managers, tech-nicians, executives and sundry other species of our notedcitizenry, are literally huddled towards Philadelphia—but yesterday the city of somnolence.

The writer is in the club car in the hope of finding aseat. Big bellied men puffing big cigars as emblems oftheir wealth and their satisfaction with things as theyare crowd the car. One cannot but smell wealth andreaction in the nicotine-poisoned atmosphere. Finally,after considerable waiting, I managed to get myself achair.

Americanism of the Moment.I felt out of place. Yet I tried my best not to look

out of place. I proceeded to read a book, "The Spirit ofthe Revolution," by John C. Fitzpatrick. Everyone elsewas straining his eyes either on the sporting columns orexamining the stock quotations of the day, or gabbingabout the big show to be staged by the two biggestAmericans—Gene and Jack—therefore, the two biggestmen in the world.

The "gentleman" to my elbow on the right lookedespecially contented and prosperous as he was rollinghis smoke and perusing the measurements of the thighsand chests of his Gene and Jack. But it didn't take himlong to notice the title of my book, blazoned in gold onits covers. Through the corner of my eye I could seehim steal glances with increasing frequency at my read-ing matter. As I was reading certain chapters, the"gentleman" on my right, who looked every inch andevery ounce the typical "executive" of our present in-dustrial system, noticed chapter titles running as "TheCommittees of the Revolution," "A Liberty Loan of theRevolution," "A Sea Captain of the Revolution," "TheRevolutionary Postoffice," etc.

Apparently, this peaceful fight fan was aroused out ofhis complacency by the repeated recurrence of the word"revolution" on the changing pages of my book. Soonhe mustered enough intimacy with me to say in hisobviously best authoritative voice: "Is this about Roosiayou are reading?" I was quick to disabuse and set hismind at ease by saying: "No, It's all about the UnitedStates. It's about the first American revolution and it'smighty instructive. In spots it's thrilling."

Scarcely had I finished my last words when the 150per center snapped: "Nonsense! You mean to saythis is a history of a revolution in America. No suchthing here. That can't be. It must be Roosia."

I realized that I had a tough job on my hands, but Ithought the game was worth the candle and went on tosay: "You see, sir, our fathers were not as holy asyou and I were taught in the primary school histories.They were a sort of pretty human fellows. They de-fended their class and made a good job out of their de-fense. I will tell you a secret—as there is no use talkingmuch about such affairs to many people just now—I cansee our forefathers guilty of many acts for which thebankers and manufacturers now condemn the Bolsheviks.They were good fighters and knew how to hit hard."

As I went on to point out sections of the book to myalready uncomfortable fellow traveler, he growled toclose his talk with me abruptly: "Ah, but who gives adamn for revolution and the fights of a hundred and fiftyyears ago? Everybody is now interested in the bigfight. Americans today have their eyes on Dempsey andTunney. They are the fighters and they could teacheven Washington how to hit hard and to knock out hisopponents."

I felt that there was no use of my making the "execu-tive's" life still more miserable and saw in the momenta welcome chance to bring our friendly hostilities to aclose. I went on to read the book which is intenselyworthwhile.

American Histories.

Except for such historians as Beard, Smith and JamesTruslow Adams, the historians of the first Americanrevolution are divided into two main classes. One:The historians of the chair, the official deifiers of theFathers, the writers of cherry tree bedtime tales, theauthors of a super-idealism and perfection of yesterdayas a basis for the perpetuation of things as they are to-day. Two: There is the type of vulgarized Marxian in-terpreters of the American Revolution so crassly typifiedby the irritated Mr. James O'Neal in his "Workers inAmerican History," and by the somewhat too topograph-ical interpretation of American history by Mr. Simons inhis "Social Forces in American History."

Mr. O'Neal, inspired by the rantings of fhe primaryschool histories over the holiness of our Forefathers,viewed the first American revolution as made largelyby smugglers. He confuses economic motives of cer-tain individuals with class interests. Needless to em-phasize, neither the mountain-and-water interpretationso extravagantly resorted to by Mr. Simons, nor the eco-nomic determinism a la Professor Seligman of Mr. O'Neal,

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

affords a Marxian, an historical materialist, a scientificanalysis and treatment of the first American revolution.

Now let us return to Mr. Fitzpatrick whose generalestimate of the character, goal, and results of the Revo-lution one need not accept. Yet, we can find in his booka fair number of refreshingly enlightening sections.

How many Americans are there, who have been toldthat the Declaration of Independence is the greatest doc-ument of liberty in the purest abstract sense, have alsobeen acquainted with the fact the congress threw outfrom the draft of the declaration a complaint against theBritish government that it was preventing the coloniesfrom checking the growth of slavery? More than that!How many historians give the class basis of this "crime"of the British government and the refusal of congress toinclude it as such in the bill of complaints against GreatBritain?

Americanism of a Different Kind.

Tho heroism and suffering of the revolutionary Ameri-can worl'srs and farmers at Valley Forge is thus pain-fully brought home by Cominander-in-Chief Washingtonin his letter to the president of congress two days beforeChristmas:

"But what makes this matter stili more extraordinaryin my eyes is, that these very gentlemen—who were wellapprized of the nakedness of the troops from ocular dem-onstration, who thought their own soldiers worse cladthan others, and who advised me near a month ago topostpone the execution of a plan I was about to adopt,in consequence of a resolve for seizing clothes, understrong assurances that an ample supply would be col-lected in ten days agreeably to a decree of the State(not one article of which, by the by, is yet come tohand):—should think a winter's campaign, and the cov-ering of these states from the invasion of an enemy, soeasy and practicable a business. I can assure these gen-tlemen that it is a much easier and less distressing thingto draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a goodfireside, than to occupy a cold, bleak hill, and sleep underthe frost and snow, without clones or blankets."

Here vre see one of the reasons for Washington beinga real leader of the army fighting to insure the birth ofthe American bourgeoisie as a native American capital-ist group free from the fetters of British feudal regula-tions and restrictions retarding American economic de-velopment.

Those of our bourgeois experts who repeatedly try topoison the minds of the masses against the proletarianrevolutionary leaders on the ground that the latter are"young and inexperienced" would do well to recall cer-tain facts: When Washington was elected Commander-iu-Chief of the Revolutionary forces he was only forty-three. Most of his aides-de-camps were from ten to fifteenyears younger. After the Revolution succeeded, thisgroup of men hitherto inexperienced in the "arts andmysteries" of government, became the ambassadors,supreme court justices, and cabinet officers in the gov-ernment of the new, the victorious ruling class whichframed the present constitution of the United States.Why, the great American bourgeois leader, AlexanderHamilton, whom our imperialists idolize so much today,was only twenty-eight years old when he was one ofWashington's closest aides in the revolution. And hewas a foreigner at that—for he was not born on the"sacred soil" of the Thirteen Colonies—then all of theUnited States.

Here is another rude reminder to our capitalist pro-

615

fessors and their masters. Mr. Fitzpatrick says:"The proportion of the population of the Thirteen Or-

iginal Colonies who were Loyalists during the Revolu-tionary War is not realized as generally as it should be.Our school histories have carelessly or intentionally ig-noored the facts, for the preponderance of the patrioticfeeling was not so great as we have been led to believe.It is doubtful if a referendum in all the Colonies on thequestion of independence, during the winter of 1777-78,would have shown a healthier majority in its favor."

Build New Government Apparatus.Prying into the organization of the victory of the then

rising and then revolutionary American bourgeoisie welisten to Mr. Fitzpatrick say further on:

"The development of the mechanics of a civil govern-ment to meet the necessities created by the struggle forpolitical librty is the most interesting of all he interest-ing phases of the American Revolution. In this develop-ment the Committees of Correspondence, of Observation,of Inspection, of Intelligence, and of Safety were mostimportant organisms. They formed the bridge by whichthe colonists passed over the morass of political destruc-tion from the ruins of a repudiated, paternalistic tyr-anny to the firm ground of self-administered governmentbeyond."The very Declaration of independence as written by

Jefferson says:"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments, long

established, should not be changed for light and transientcauses but whenever any form of government becomesdestructive of these ends (l ife, liberty, and the pursuitof happiness), it is the right of the people to alter orabolish it, and to institute new government, laying itsfoundation on such principles, and organizing its powersin such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effecttheir safety and happiness."Indeed, the next American revolutionary class—the

proletariat—to displace with a higher social system theAmerican capitalist system which was once revolution-ary but is now reactionary, once useful but now sociallydestructive, will have "to institute new government"and succeed in "organizing its powers in such form(based on the mass organizations of the working class)as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safetyand happiness."

Revolutionary Committees in Action.Let us heed such wise words as follow from Mr. Fitz-

patrick."To establish a political machine of this character,

extraneous to and unrecognized by any legal sanction,was difficult and dangerous as well. So dangerous wasthis that the Boston committee felt it wise to bind itsmembers by oath not to divulge is proceedings. . .

"This bold questioning of Britain's authority met withmost enthusiastic support; Virginia's ringing call to ac-tion echoed up and down the Atlantic coast and beforetwo months had passed the New England colonies weresolidly organized into committee groups, with rumors oflike activity coming in steadily from the southward . . .

"It was this group organization that controlled at theoutbreak of the hostilities of the Revolutionary War, andit held steady the reins of governmental power and au-thority until the Royalist machinery was shaken looseand democratic governments set up and set in motion.In the rosters of these committeemen of 1773 are to befound the names of nearly every revolutionary patriotmost famiiiar to us ...

"By 1774 a new type of committee was coming into ex-istence; that of the Committee of Safety. This commit-tee rapidly became the most important of all. The titlesnow changed again, and there were Committees of Safetyand Correspondence, of Safety and Observation, of Safetyand Inspection, but in all the combinations the word"safety" took precedence. There was something omi-nous in the appearance of this world. It seemed to as-sume that the danger of a resort to force of arms mightnot be far distant."The American proletariat can learn much from the

Committees of the Revolution for its coming revolution-ary struggles. There are certain fundamental principlesinvolved. One of these is that the oppressed class, strug-gling to overthrow the ruling class, cannot simply layhold of the existing state machinery which is best fittedfor perpetuating the prevailing social order but, on the

616

contrary, must destroy this machinery and set up itsown governmental system suited for effectively buildingup a new social order for progress. The Russian andGerman revolutions and the great class struggles in Eng-land have likewise shown the infallibility of this prin-ciple of revolutions — which after all are only high watermarks, culminating points of years of change-processesin class relationships and struggles.

Describing the activities of these Revolutionary Com-mittees Mr. Fitzpatrick says:

"It is impossible to withhold admiration from actionsuch as this. It was sabotage; but sabotage boldly andpublicly recommended in the face of the bayonet . . . Itwas plainly evident that the committees were engines ofpower and accomplishment sufficient in themselves tooverturn the royal Government in the Colonies . . .

"The central Committees of Safety became, from theircomposition and character, the most important and pow-erful of all the committees. During the transition periodbefore the royal Government fell to pieces and beforethe Revolutionary legislatures could begin to function,they held, for a time, almost dictatorial power. But itwas always wisely used and quietly wielded in co-opera-tion with the local town and country committees. To-gether these committees held firm to the heavy, every-day work of massing the resources of the country behind

claims, and performed hundreds of other tasks of a minornature, but none the less necessary, which, unattendedto, would have increased immeasurably the burdens anddifficulties of the war."

Hardships of First Revolution.

What an uphill struggle the first American revolution-ary army had to fight! What a sad plight it was in now andthen! In order to encourage enlistments, the Contin-ental Congress passed a resolution offering a clothingbounty to those who would enlist for the whole periodof the war.

The problems of the revolution are problems of every-day life. After Lexington and the siege of Boston therewas brought into existence an army that grew daily.Then, there was the bread problem. Picturing the initialstages of this phase of the building of the first Americanrevolutionary army, Fitzpatrick tells us:

"The individual soldier, with flour trading as his ex-cuse, straggled and plundered and roused the ire of thecountry people by his marauding practices . . .

"The lack of system and the evil effects therefromwere not plainly evident at first . . .

"Periods of prolonged drouth which withered cropsand dried up the water-power in the mills; long continuedand heavy rains which hurt the grain, clogged the roads,and held up the supply wagons; speculators who gam-bled in foodstuffs, and farmers who held on to theirgrain for better prices, all contributed to the hardshipssuffered by the army . . .

"There was always sufficient food in America to feedthe Continental troops bountifully; transportation andmismanagement, most of which were avoidable, kept thearmy nearly always in want. The quantity of the breadration was cut down many times to eke out the supplyduring periods of scarcity. Several times during the year1779, and not always during the winter months, theNorthern Department troops were on the verge of mut-iny from lack of bread. The ragged finances of the cen-tral Government were responsible, in large measure forthe bread scarcity."

These were but the birth pangs of a higher social orderin America one hundred and fifty years ago. Today, onlythe bedlamite would condemn as bankrupt the new orderof things for which our Forefathers went through theseand other countless trials and tribulations.

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Likewise, the well-kept editors and bourgeois militaryexperts who only the other day overworked themselvesridiculing the first days of the Red Army of the Prole-tarian Revolution in Russia in 1917 would do well to re-call that it was not until the grand review held in honorof Comte Rochambeau that American soldiers were "fac-ing each other fully clothed and equipped, for the firsttime during the war, with supplies furnished by France."This was after Yorktown—virtually at the end of thewar.

Challenging British State Power.A particularly interesting feature of the American

challenge to British state power is to be found in thefirst beginnings of the American post office system.thusdescribed by Fitzpatrick: ,

"The Royal Mail in the Colonies became a source ofirritation to the people with the beginning of the StampAct excitement. The postal rates were high and thebusiness methods a mixture of arrogance and super-ciliousness. When the struggle against the Crown com-menced, the Royal Post Office interfered in every pos-sible way that could block the efforts of the Colonies toobtain unanimity of action. It delayed and suppressednews and mishandled mail. Letters were opened, read,and destroyed, and the information thus obtained wastransmitted to the royal authorities. Such interferencewas serious, and this and many petty tyrannies of thePost were decided factors in rousing the spirit of pro-test and rebellion, especially among the business andmerchantile classes."One, William Goddard, was owner and publisher of the

Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, a vigorousanti-government weekly. This paper, being barred fromthe mails a year before the civil war began, organizedits own system of post riders. According to Fitzpatrickthis postal system, whose head was Goddard, gave usthe first Surveyor-General of Postal Roads for the Revo-lutionary Colonial Government—Mr. Goddard himself.Says Fitzpatrick:

"By August, 1774 Goddard's service was in full opera-tion and the revenues of the Royal Mail were seriouslycurtailed by the competition. It was not a peacefulcompetition, however, and there were frequent personalencounters and much bad blood displayed by the com-peting riders when they chanced to meet upon the road.These were, in effect, the preliminary skirmishes of thewar that was soon to break forth."

An Estimate of Our First Revolution.

Historically the first American revolution was a social-ly progressive step. It ushered in a period of highersocial development. It crushed lower forms of produc-tion, brought to a crash the feudal fetters foisted uponthe social relations in the colonies by the British rulingclass, paved the way for the overthrow of the Britishmonarchy in America, and for the subsequent establish-ment of a bourgeois democratic government. All ofthese were, historically, steps forward—revolutionarysteps in their days. Of course, in time, the advanced,the revolutionary steps of yesterday becamse the con-servative steps of today, and the reactionary, backward,and counter-revolutionary steps of tomorrow.

With the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781,the British army bands, unknowingly indeed, were his-torically correct when they attempted a vicious satireby beating upon their drums "The World Turned Up-side Down" to help their crushed and humiliated troopsmarch their surrender to George Washington—the ris-ing star of what was decades later to become the mostpowerful and reactionary national bourgeois ruling groupin the world.

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

Mr. Fitzpatrick is rather impressionistic than analy-tical in his pages. He does not deal with the exploitsand strategy of the over-estimated military campaignsof the first American revolution. He does not chew overthe moth-eaten grammar school causes of the first Amer-ican Revolution. Mr. Fitzpatrick deals with the minut-est details of the mechanism and the technique of theRevolution and its fighting forces.

But precisely because the author works with such"small," professorially speaking insignificant details, asWashington's expenses at Valley Forge, the bands of theContinental Army, the why and how of the first Ameri-can postoffice, the bread and clothes of the revolution-ary -soldiers, and the Committees of Correspondence andSafety of the Revolutionary War, that one is enabledto see clearly the powerful social forces, the dynamicclass interests as the real motivators of this great his-torical drama known as the first American Revolution.

A New Interest in American History.

The Sesqui-Centennial celebration has been the oc-casion for the beginning of a new literature dealingwitn the first American revolution. We are nowlearning something more about the social millieu, theclass relationships, struggles, and basis of the per-iod of the first American Revolution. Books whichtreated the American revolution in such a serious man-ner were in the .past largely reserved for shelf-haibita-tion. Now, such books are on the move and growinglypopular. Mr. <Fitzpatrick's book is really a contributionto the "human interest" side of the American Revolu-tion. We would recommend it not so much for its view-point or its keen social analysis. We would rather en-dorse it, despite some shortcomings in this respect, asa book which can only inspire a more active interest inthe why and wherefore of our great class struggles of1776 and thenabout.

iMr. 'Fitzpatrick has brought to more popular lightsome very interesting and instructive "petty details andlittle things," which are keys to some of the largestphases and most important lessons of the first Ameri-can revolutionary struggles. To the worker who readsthe history of yesterday in the light of the great eventsof today, Fitzpatrick's "The Spirit of the Revolution" ismost readable and stimulating.

617

INDIVIDUAL NAME PENCIL SETSfinest qua/ity /fatter m» coin pocket containing

sa/>enc//jf in assortedVo/o/s ANYNAMtEemvtDlNl8Ki.Goio- SHARPENER- RULER

Sendclifcti orm<

•W7 BROADWAY.

SET- C*mCP- PROTECTOR-F REE

ormoneu oratv.NGIL. co.DEPT. 37 Y "ewYORK

R E V I E W S

"THE STORY OF THE WESTERN RAILROADS," ByRobert Edgar Rigel. Published by Macmillan Company,New York. 345 pp.

rpHE story of the American railroads is a story of capi-•*• talist spoliation. It is the best example of primitiveaccumulation of capital a student of capitalism can pos-sibly find. When the Huntingtons and Hills rose overnight from comparatively have-nothings to the richesof millionaires it is clear that they could not possiblyhave "earned" their wealth no matter what liberal inter-pretation one may put on the word earning. Fraud,bribery and corruption was the source of this suddenrichness. Thus the story of the Western Railroads, too,is primarily a story of fraud, bribery and corruption per-petrated by the promoters.

Even if one does not want to attack capitalism it isquite a feat to write this story without calling downupon the heads of these spoilers the wrath of the presentgeneration. The author of this book, however, makes aconscientious effort to accomplish this feat. And, asfar as accomplishments in this direction are possible,he succeeds.

He is by no means ignorant of the facts or blind tothem. He includes many of them in his book. But hedoes not want the reader to draw any conclusions fromthese facts that might be inimical to capitalism. Theworst he would say is: "There was little doubt in mostpeople's minds that at least a portion of the state aidhad been put to improper use." Or, in another place:"The activities of the company in securing this addi-tional aid were not wholly above question."

One of the worst manipulators played the game soshamelessly that even a United States House of Repre-sentatives, steeped though it was itself in railroad graft,had to pass a public censure on him. Of this modelcapitalist the author says: "Up to the time of his death,shortly after the house vote of censure, he was unableto understand wherein he had erred." And of the prac-tices of this gentleman the author declares: "Therewas no question but what the Credit Mobilier had beenused to evade the letter of the law. . . . Such evasionmight well have come from the purest of motives." Whatwere these manipulations and what were the motives?The government made tremendous grants on the basisof a contract that the promoters and prospective stock-holders invest 100 cents for every dollar of stock issued.The promoters swindled the government into fulfillingits obligations under the contract, though they evadedtheirs. They organized a construction company. As thecontrolling power of the railroad company they votedthe construction contracts to themselves, although theirprices were from two hundred to four hundred per centhigher than actual cost. Then they accepted stock at

618

par as payment. And the stock, thus nominally trans-ferred at par, but actually at from 25 to 40 cents on thedollar, was sold by them in the open market at greatprofits, though below par. The result was that theypocketed millions of profits on no tangible investmentwhatever. Very pure motives, it seems. So pure werethese motives that even the promoter had a doubt abouttheir purity and bribed members of congress to buy favor-able action from them. Stock was distributed amongcongressmen very freely.

The author's judgment of this congressional stock dis-tribution is not as outspoken as ours. He declares:"Whatever or not he (the briber) expected to influencelegislation is a matter of doubt." We are sure that onlythe author of this book doubts it.

All in all, however, the book contains a mass of veryvaluable material and data. The facts of the story ofthe Western Railroads are so eloquent that their apolo-getic treatment by the author cannot silence their les-sons. The book destroys completely the myth of therailroad promoter as the benevolent gentleman who hadvisions of service for his country. Over-capitalized com-panies and very poorly constructed railroads testify tothe real incentive of the promoters. They were out toshear the sheep and cash in on the wool. If this sheep-shearing could not be done without, at the same time,building some sort of railroads, we are indebted forour railroads, not to the promoters, but to the condi-tions which presented railroad promoting as an excellentmethod for sheep shearing. We are not complainingabout this. We know that it is the peculiarity of capital-ism that in its period of upward development it couldnot serve itself without serving, in some degree at least,society. But we want to make clear the facts.

"The Story of the Western Railroads" can be readwith great benefit toy revolutionary workers. It containspart of the history of capitalism in America. It presentsthe facts of this part of history. And the analysis ofthese facts, which the author omits, can be suppliedeasily by any intelligent proletarian reader. —M. B.

DEBITS AND CREDITS, by Rudyard Kipling. Double-day Page & Co., New York.

T710R the last fifteen years Kipling has been churningout very poor stuff and this volume of prose and

verse is average bad. Prom his youth Kipling has beenthe bard of the subordinate official and the young armyofficer. He has written on many topics: his Mulvaneytales were excellently done—so were the Jungle Booksand dozens of his stories—but his paragons were Stalky,the "Brushwood Boy"—keen young subalterns. The hor-rible death roll of the war convinced even Kipling thatmilitary keenness is not enough for a national objectiveand—even more disillusioning—he found that workersand "rankers" (enlisted men) often made better officersthan "Sahibs."

Kipling's approach is infantile—his terrific hates ofthe "Huns," of America, of organized labor (remember"The Benefactors" published the "American" in July,

WORKERS MONTHLY

1912, but excluded from the three volumes brought outsince), of the colonial rebels in Ireland or India, of theBoers—in all he shows a child's lack of poise. He hasalso the child's joy in glass beads and "dressing up"—he preaches the salvation of the world thru brotherlylove expressed in Masonic ritual—how he emphasizesthat ritual! He puts more faith in spooks now than heused to, so that it is a dull tale has not at least oneghost. This is possibly due to the death of his son in1915. When a bereaved man believes in immortalityand the soul, he usually hatches other quaint ideas.

The American press has squealed over his verse, the"Vineyard." In it he complains that after England burn-ed her fingers pulling chestnuts from the war fire, Amer-ica pouched them. It is our patriotic duty to point outthat the American hacks have overlooked an even morebitter attack—"Gow's Watch." In thinly veiled meta-phor he ridicules America's claim to give moral guidanceto the world, calls the Americans "naked savages,"weaklings who fled the Old World struggle, pagans withhoards of gold but ignorant of how to use it. Such abuseis childish. The American bourgeoisie dominates theworld, because it owns the most modern and efficientindustrial plant and because it mixed in the last warat the most profitable time.

There are two good stories in the book, but they arenot good enough to make it worth reading.

—G. N. Kaplan.

JESUS THE NAZARENE—MYTH OR HISTORY, byMaurice Goguel, translated by Frederick Stephens, pp.320. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1926. $3.

rpHIS is just the book to give to a fundamentalist as a-*• Christmas present or as a birthday present or as anyother kind of present. But don't fail to omit your nameon the presentation card.

The publisher's description of the book is quite trueto its contents: "A great French scholar presents theevidence and arguments for and against the existenceof Christ." The conclusion to which the "great Frenchscholar"—"Doctor of Theology and Literature, Professorof Exogesis and New Testament Criticism in Faculty ofFree Protestant Theology (Paris)"—arrives is of novery great importance for us; it happens to be thatJesus had an historical existende. What is of impor-tance is the method of investigation. The method is ofthe strictest scientific objectivity, a careful and often .detailed and .technical examination of all the availableliterary evidence, Christian and' non-Christian. Jesusand the so-called "sacred writings" are dealt with justas any other phenomena in the history of human civili-zation; probably the only reminder of the current Chris-tian superstition is the capitalization of the pronounsreferring to Jesus or God. What powerful ideologicdynamite in destroying old superstition and religiousillusions such a conception and such a method of ap-proach can become, if only put into popular form andbrought to the masses, is not hard to imagine. Forpeople who are accustomed in their everyday thought

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

to regard Jesus as a god and the New Testament writ-ings as inspired and literally perfect documents, the veryfact that the existence of Jesus is questioned, and veryseriously, too, is enough to shake the foundations offaith. And when they find that the questions of theirgod and of their god-given writings are discussed byworld-famous scholars with the some objectivity andstrict exclusion of the supernatural as are employedill the study of Buddhism or Islam—in other words, thatChristianity is examined as a thing "of this world"—then it is hard even for the most profound and ingrainedfaith to stand firm and unshaken.

To submit divine revelation to the cold unimpassionedexamination of science, to test God's infallibe revelationby the "merely human" knowledge of man—this veryidea acts as a breath of cold fresh air upon the fetidand unwholesome atmosphere of religious belief. AndBO, this book (and the whole modern critical movement)is of considerable value from the point of view of anti-religious propaganda—in spite of the fact that our authorand his confreres would recoil in horror at such impioususes of their work. But such is the logic of their positionthat, pious and religious tho they are, they themselvesundermine the foundations of faith and forge sharpweapons for the sceptic and unbeliever.

Aside from the more immediate and more "practical"anti-religious viewpoint there is the viewpoint of scenceas such. For we must not fall nto the error of the vulgar"materialists" ("free thinkers") in regarding religion andChristianity as so much "vicious nonsense," of no impor-tance whatever except as something to be refuted. Suchan idea is utterly anti-Marxist and unhistorical, a bour-geois rationalist perversion. For Jesus (if he ever lived,which is, to say the least, doubtful) and Christianity asa social phenomenon have been of the greatest conse-quence in the history of European and world civilizationand any accurate, scientific study of some phase of thesephenomena well deserves our careful consideration. Asan illustration of the methods of modern Biblical criti-cism our book is particularly useful because of its rela-tively simple and untechnical character and because ofthe extraordinary lucidity of the writer and translator.For the advanced worker who wants to know what'sdoing in this field of science (methods rather than re-sults) this book is certainly to be recommended.

The Workers' Month ly is not a technical journal de-voted to this specialty, and so we shall attempt no expo-sition or criticism of the" theses and arguments put for-ward in the -book nor of the general methodologicalvalidity of the "higher criticism."

As far as the conclusion of the book itself is concerned—the historicity of Jesus—we merely want to point outwhat is generally recognized as a fact, that it makesvery little basic difference for an understanding of early

619

Christianity whether the historical Jesus existed or not.For it was not Jesus who created and formed Chris-tianity as a social and religious movement; it was theconditions of society attending the birth of the newreligion. Our author, to a certain extent, realizes thisand points it out, from a doctrinal standpoint, towardsthe end of the book. Whatever we may think of thehistorical Jesus (of whom we know nothing), we can saywith the utmost certitude of the traditional Jesus, of theJesus of Gospels, that not Jesus created Christianity, but—Christianity created Jesus!

It is indeed strange that the whole movement of the"higher criticism" (modern Biblical criticism), whichhas done more than anything else to tear down theobscurantist veil of religious mysticism and superstitionfrom the history of early Christianity, has been almostwholly the work of clergymen and other pious scholarswhose defense of religion is all the more vigorousbecause their own work has served to break down itssuperstitions and dissipate its illusions. But we mustnot be misled by this fact and miss the historical sig-nificance of the whole movement. Dialectics bid usdistinguish the positive from the negative. Lenin hasa good lesson to teach us in this respect (N. Lenin,Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, I, 1, p. 13):

"And now let us consider . . . the representatives ofmodern religious criticism. In almost every case theserepresentatives of the educated bourgeoisie are sure to'complete' their own refutation of religious prejudicesthru arguments that immediately expose them as spir-itual slaves of the bourgeoisie, as 'diplomad lackeys ofthe priesthood.'

"Two examples: Professor R. J. Wipper published(1918) a book entitled: 'The Origin of Christianity.'After taking up the important results of modern science,the author not only refuses to touch upon, in the courseof his further considerations, the struggle against preju-dice and deceit which the church uses as political weap-ons, but he also makes the absurd and reactionary claimof standing above both 'extremes,' idealism and mater-ialism. What does this represent but support to theruling bourgeoisie which spends millions squeezed out ofthe toiling masses for the maintenace of religion?

"The well-known German scholar, Arthur Drews, in hisbook 'The Christ Myth' follows up his attack upon andrefutation of religious prejudices and fairy-tales and hisproof that Chirst never really existed, with an explana-tion that he is really for religion, naturally for a reno-vated, better constructed and better formulated religion,a religion capable of resisting 'the ever rising tide of nat-uralism.'

"This does not in any way mean that we will nottranslate Drews into Russian. It only means that THECOMMUNISTS, and all logical and thoro-going mater-ialists, MUST KONW HOW TO GO ALONG IN ALLI-ANCE (within certain limts) WITH THE PROGRESSIVEPART OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND YET KNOW HOWTO EXPOSE THEM UNHESITATINGLY THE MOMENTTHEY BECOME REACTIONARY."

These are profound "words and they light up, as witha torch, the whole problem of the ideologic relations ofthe Communists (and all revolutionary materialists)with bourgeois science and bourgeois scientists.

For this book we can say that there is much that isprogressive, i. e., scientific, and very little, it at all, thatis reactionary. —Apex.

620

"THE RISE AND FALL OF JESSE JAMES," By Rob-

ertus Love. Published by G. P. Putnam Sons, (New York.446 pp.

rpHERE exists quite an extensive biographical litera-ture about the inventor of train hold-ups and daylight

bank robbery, Jesse James. Most of it, however, is justblood-curdling dime novel stuff. Authors and publishersof such, trash attempt to coin profits from suppresseddesires of prospective readers to do bad deeds. Theyknow that such suppressed desires love to revel in secretexstasies about the bad deeds of others.

"The Rise and Fall of Jesse James" is decidedly not ofthis class. It is not a pure biography, either. Nor is itexactly history. It is simply a story, a good story. Thehistoric exactness of any story of the bandit Jesse Jamesmust naturally suffer in the absence of any authentic rec-ord of his deeds. He did not keep such a record. Thereexists no comprehensive court records. And many ofthe deeds that public opinion laid at his door wereascribed to him, originally by the real culprits, as a"catch thief" ruse.

"The Rise and Fall of Jesse James" is a rather wellwritten book. It paints a realistic picture of the banditand his accomplices. It portrays the men in their con-tradictory mixture of good and bad. It certainly strikesthe reader how the exemplary husband and father, JesseJames, and the jovial and amiable "Uncle Cole" Youngercould have been cold-blooded bandits whose fixed pricefor a human life in their way was just a bullet.

But, after all, Jesse James was only human. He wasfundamentally not much different from the average Bab-bit. Good and bad in him were side by side.

Where he differed from the average Babbit is that hegave free reign to his badness. Thus he gave a lusterof genuineness to his goodness. Babbit's saintliness,on the other hand, smacks too much of hypocrisy. He isnot a saint because he hates to do bad. He is merelya moral coward, lacking courage to be bad.

The author treats his subjects with ability and sym-pathy. The book is well worth reading. —Criticus.

THE RELATION OF NATURE TO MAN IN ABORIGI-

NAL AMERICA, by Clark Wissler. pp. 248. OxfordUniversity Press, American Branch, New York City.

TT is rare indeed that we come upon a work at oneswritten with the proper scientific sobriety, significant

in its ideas and conclusions, and interesting enough toabsorb the serious reader tho he may know nothing ofthe technicalities of anthropology and ethnology. Andso we consider this work a valuable one, tho, as weshall see, it just stops short of rising to the higher levelof historic materialism.

The essential aim of the work is to investigate "therelation between man and nature." "It is ... de-sirable to choose what promises to be the simpler formof this relation, and, since it is usually assumed tha,taboriginal man lived close to nature, or was more direct-ly dependent upon natural phenomena than those groupsof men we look upon as having attained a civilized state,the American Indian claims first consideration."

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

The instrument of the investigation thus outlined isthe study of the geographical distribution of humantraits, taking into consideration, of course, the attend-ant phenomena of migration and diffusion. No one whohas not carefully read this book can fully realize howeffectively Professor Wissler collects his data, how skill-fully he marshals and classifies them, and how convinc-ingly he presents his conclusions.

The conclusions to which Professor Wissler finallyarrives and which are supported by his mass of distri-bution data are very significant. "A principle, or law,may be formulated . . . (that) . . . when twosections of a continent differ in climates, florae andfaunae, or in their ecological complexes (i. e., "livingconditions"), the culture of the tribal groups in one sec-tion will differ from that in the other" (p. 214). Thus,"Pueblo culture is an affair of this semi-desert area andis confined to it" (p. 213). In general, "it appears therule that, wherever . . . a well-marked ecologicalarea (i. e., an area with approximately the same "liv-ing conditions") can be delineated, there one will finda culture area" (p. 216). In other words, the cultureof the aborigines of America was determined directlyor indirectly by their natural material environment.

Professor Wissler says a few words as to the me-chanism of this law. "A hunting tribe will, for ex-ample, 'specialize upon one or two forms of game andso develop a complex of traits, habits and customs fav-orable to the pursuit of such game" (p. 217). The effectof 'what Professor Wissler calls the "ecological factor"may not be apparent at first sight, but it is real never-theless. Take the sun dance. There seems to be nodirect connection between the material conditions of lifeand "the development of the sun dance; but there maybe an indirect one, in -that certain economic conditionsare the more favorable to the elaboration of such specialtraits" (p. 219).

Such, in his own words, are Professor Wissler's thes-es. To the Marxist they present a familiar aspect. Itis only on the basis of the Marxist theory of historicmaterialism that this "ecologalical" theory can be prop-erly understood, its validity and limits clearly demar-cated, and the theory itself articulated in its properplace in the fundamental, uniformly valid theory of his-torical materialism.

The great success that Professor Wissler meets inapplying his theory to his facts is due to the fact that—he chooses his facts! Not consciously, of course!The selection comes in thru the fact that he studiesthe "simpler form of the relation of man to nature,"the phenomena exhibited by abor ig ina l man. And injustice to our author it must be recorded that in thiswork he does not pretend that his 'conclusions extendany further.

Now, primitive man was largely dependent upon na-ture, as our author points out. He had not yet builtup an apparatus for harnessing and transforming na-ture; the forces of production which he used in his lifeprocess were overwhelmingly natura l forces. Artificialor man-made productive forces ("tools") were of themost primitive sort and played a minor role. Naturally,

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6

therefore, since, as Marx clearly proved, social develop-ment is in the last analysis dependent upon the "stateof development of the productive forces," primitive cul-ture culture is very largely traceable to the natural en-vironment, "the ecological situation."

But man is a tool-making animal; he is continuallyextending his forces of production. He cannot remainsatisfied with what nature gives. He constructs newthings—tools, and so lays the basis for his whole socialand ideological development. These "artificial" or man-made productive forces are created in response to andupon the basis of the conditions and the forces of thenatural environment but they represent an extensionand a development of the natural productive forces and,as man forges ahead, soon come to overshadow them.The process is not simply a mechanical addition of"tools" to "nature." There is an internal co-ordinationbetween the constructions of man and the forces of na-ture into a uniform whole that, at any particular per-iod, represents the "stage of development of the forcesof production." Corresponding to this stage of develop-ment there arises a system of economic -relations thatforms the "economic structure of society, the real basison which rise" social, political and ideological super-structures.

This is the reason why the "ecological" theories—ifthey rely upon the "natural" environment only—are soinsufficient to account for the social and cultural pheno-mena of human development, once we get beyond themore p r i m i t i v e stages. Only the integral doctrine ofhistoric materialism—in which the "ecological" doctrinescan find their place—can explain satisfactorily the his-tory of mankind.

Yet Professor Wissler's work, incomplete and liableto misinterpretation and misapplication tho it be, isvaluable because of its objective and materialist meth-od and well as because of the insight it gives intothe life of primitive man. —Apex.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF THE BUSINESS CYCLE, ByDorothy Swaine Thomas, New York. E. P. Dutton& Co., 1925, 217 pp.

rriHIS is a book that can be heartily recommended tothe advanced worker-student whom a few unavoid-

able statistical technicalities cannot frighten away."The objects of this study is an examination of the

sociological aspects of the business cycle. The tool isstatistical analysis." Such is the author's own definitionof the task and method.

It is a familiar fact that, within the long-range, one-directional trend (the so-called "secular trend") of eco-nomic development under capitalism, there are short-range, periodic phenomena, cyclical changes, flux andreflux. Within the general movement of capitalist de-velopment, there are ups and downs of prosperity, de-pression, boom, crisis, etc., repeating themselves in adefinite, more or less regular fashion. Bourgeois econ-omists have apparently given up as hopeless the problemof explaining these periodical phenomena known as the

621

"business cycle"—because a scientific understanding ofthe problem, such as Marxism gives, necessarily in-volves recognition of the class basis, the exploitive char-acter, and the entirely historical nature of the capitalisteconomy, something that it is surely too much for usto expect from either the economic apologists or the ec-lectics.- And so, bourgeois economics has addressed itself,especially of late, to the external aspects of the phenom-ena whose innter nature it cannot understand, to a cerefuland minutely accurate description, primarily in quantita-tive terms, of its many phases and aspects. In this taskconsiderable success has been attained—as witness, forexample, Wesley C. Mitchell's Business Cycles and thecollection of papers on Business Cycles and Unemploy-ment. What might be called the "economic aspects" ofthe business cycle have received a competent empiricalexamination and quantitative formulation.

But what about the "social aspects?" Do the periodicchanges in the current of economic development haveany social reverberations? "Do the fluctuations in busi-ness produce fluctuations in social conditions?" (p. 54).Does the business cycle have any effect on social life,on the marriage rate, on the birth rate, on crime, on il-legitimate births, on prostitution, to name some phasesof social life which are subject to a quantitative examin-ation? These problems are the subject of our book.

That the task is no easy one is apparent to any onewho understands the technical as well as the sociologicalside of the problem. Yet the author succeeds admirablyiu making the problem itself, the methods used, and theresults achieved intelligible to the attentive reader whomay know nothing of the technical intricacies of statis-tics. The banishment of the purely technical materialto the appendices as well as the wealth of tables andcharts help a great deal in achieving this end.

The book is very well organized. After an introduc-tory statement on "The Problem and Its Setting," therefollows a "Critique of Previous Researches into theSocial Aspects of the Business Cycle," including a re-print of an earlier investigation by Miss Thomas andProfessor Ogburn. This is perparatory to the actualinvestigations which follow: "Marriage and the BusinessCycle," "Births and the Business Cycle," "Deaths andthe Business Cycle," "Pauperism and the Business Cycle,""Alcoholism and the Business Cycle," "Crime and theBusiness Cycle," "Emigration and the Business Cycle,""Summary and Conclusions." Several appendices on thestatistical methods employed and some important tablesconclude the book.

This is no place to review either the methods or theresults of Miss Thomas' inquiry. Altho her results arenot always conclusive and are sometimes very puzzling—as, for example, in connection with the death ratewhich appears to increase with prosperity instead of de-creasing as we would naturally expect—her discussionsare very stimulating and are quite effective in evokingthe thoughtful consideration of the reader for the prob-lem and its difficulties as well as for the results actuallyattained. The large amount of statistical materialbrought forward and carefully organized is also of con-siderable value for reference.

622

The most interesting problems aroused by this bookare not discussed in it at all—naturally, since it is apurely statistical study. These are problems going tothe very roots of sociological and historical theory—prob-lems of historic causation, of the relation of social andhistorical phenomena to the consciousness, the feeling,the will of individuals. Thus, for instance, it is provedthat there is a very high correlation between industrialconditions and the mariage rate—when conditions are"good" marriages are relatively numerous; when condi-tions are "bad," on the other hand, the marriage ratefalls off, and for intermediary conditions there is anequally close relation. Another example: "Burglary,house- and shop-breaking and robbery. . . show adefinite tendency to increase in a business depressionand to decrease with prosperity." (p. 139).

Here at one end of the causal chain we have the busi-ness cycle; at the other end—the rate of mariage andthe number of crimes! How does one phenomenon con-vert itself into the other? Certainly, marriage is a mat-ter of the "free choice" of the individuals involved, ifanything ever is and a burglary is popularly supposedto be "willed" by the burglar. What influence has thebusiness cycle upon "free choice?" That is the problem.

It is well known that the observation of such "socialregularities" ("particularly Quetelet's studies) was apowerful factor in the development of the doctrine ofhistoric materialism. If alcoholism, prostitution and bur-glary and such other moral phenomena are seen to de-pend a great deal upon economic conditions, or as theold investigators used to say, "on the price of grain,"then surely it is no longer monstrous to take these phe-nomena out of the realm of theology and "morality" andrefer them to the social conditions and ultimately to theeconomic relations of society. Now, when this is done,we have taken the longest step towards historic materi-alism. And if these "social regularities" lead directlyto historic materialism, historic materialism on the otherhand, offers the only satisfactory explanation for these"social regularities." Only upon the theory that theeconomic structure of society (corresponding to the defi-nite state of development of the productive forces) is thebasis upon which rise the social and ideological super-structures can we really understand the inner relationsof "the price of grain and the frequency of suicide."

But the one problem still remains: there can be noquestion that people think, will and feel—yet the socialevents when they occur are independent of the con-sciousness, of the feeling, of the will, of any particularindividual. The events take place in an "unconscious,"elemental, "natural," and highly regular predictable man-ner.

Engels solves this problem in a very clear way, at thesame time answering those critics of Marxism who im-pute to it a fatalistic character:

"There are numberless criss-crossing forces, an end-less aeries of parallelograms of forces, whose resultant—the historical event—appears . . . to be the product of aforce without consciousness and without will. For, whatany particular person wills is interfered with by anotherand what emerges is not what anyone precisely haswilled."

W O R K E R S M O N T H L Y

Social and historical phenomena are composed of theactions of men but how men act and react—all the whilebelieving themselves to be acting "freely"— and whatthe resultant of all these actions and interactions willbe, is conditioned upon and determined by the economicand social relations, by the forces at work in society, bythe configuration and correlation of classes.

"Men make their own history but in a given environ-ment that conditions them, on the basis of given deter-mining relations . . ." (Engels).

Such are the conclusions to which a consideration ofthe basic problems aroused by this book leads and suchis the only viewpoint from which the theses developedin this book are anything more than interesting empiricalobservations. Considered from the viewpoint of historicmaterialism both the material and the results of thisbook acquire great significance.—Apex.

MOHAMMED, by R. F. Dibble, pp. 357. The Viking Press,N. Y. C.

mHlS book is a treat—in spite of a blemish or two. It-*- is cleverly written with a certain deft and urbaneirony; it is pleasant to read, Interesting, informative . . .all around, quite satisfying. This much is -simple . . .

But once we attempt to analyze the book or to classi-fy it, the matter is no longer quite so simple. What kindof book is it? The publishers speak of it as their "bignon-fiction book of the year"—but this brings us nonearer to the answer. Is it history? Or biography, orwhat?

As history it has many glaring faults, enough to damnit without appeal. For, aside from one or two half-hearted attempts at "theorizing"—that is, at historicalanalysis and "the discovery of causes"—the authormakes no pretences whatever in the direction of history.There is no serious consideration of the social and eco-nomic organization of Arabian society, no examinationof the social forces or the tendencies of historic devel-opment, no analysis of the role of Mohammed and Is-lam in the social life-process, there is in fact, no vestigeof what history would demand as the very first step.

Nor is it biography, 'scientific, scholarly biography.Simply to read the book is to realize this. The very ideaof accurate scholarship seems preposterous in the at-mosphere of the book. It seems quite bad taste, quiteincongruous, one feels, to demand any documentation orany weighing of evidence. Delightful legends and strik-ing even tho apocryphal anecdotes are woven into thenarrative so that before we know it we have left theworld of hard verified fact and are sailing airily thruthe clouds of fancy. No, this is no biography . . .

Well, then, what in the name of "non-fiction" is itthen? It strikes us that this book should most profit-ably be considered as a glorified historical novel, as asort of transition from the historical romance to historyand biography. We do not mean to reflect on the ac-curacy of the picture it paints. We merely wish to pointout that, above all, it is a picture that is being painted,a story that is being told, and not a phenomenon thatis being investigated. The basic motivation is unques-

N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 6 623

tionably esthetic and not scientific. We do not wish tobe understood as implying that history or biography canhave no esthetic values—quite the contrary. But inthis case we are dealing, not with an artistically writtenbiography, but with a piece of literature that has con-siderable biographical and historical value. The domin-ant theme is esthetic . . .

So—read the book, but not as biography or history.Read it as a brilliant and accurate historical novel. Youwill enjoy it . . . and learn. —Apex.

STATEMENTof the ownership, management, circulation, etc., required by

the act of Congress of August 24, 1912.

Of The Workers Monthly published monthly at Chicago, 111.,tor October 1, 1926.

State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss.

Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and countyaforesaid, personally appeared Moritz J. Loeb, who, havingbeen duly sworn according- to law, deposes and says that heIs the Business Manager of the "Workers Monthly and thatthe following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, atrue statement of the ownership, management (and if a dailypaper, the circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication forthe date shown in the above caption, required by the Act ofAugust 24, 1912, embodied in section 411, Postal Laws andRegulations, printed on the reverse of this form, to wit:

1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor,managing editor, and business managers are: Publisher DailyWorker Publishing Co., 1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago,111 Editor, Max Bedacht. Managing Editor, None. BusinessManager, Moritz J. Loeb.

2. That the owner is: (If owned by a corporation, its nameand address must be stated and also immediately thereun-der the names and addresses of stockholders owning or hold-ing one per cent or more of total amount of stock. If notowned by a corporation, the names and addresses of theindividual owners must be given. If owned by a firm, com-pany, or other unincorporated concern, its name and address,as well as those of each individual member, must be given.)J. P. Cannon, 19 S. Lincoln St., Chicago, 111. C. B. Ruthen-berg, 1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, 111. Jay Lovestone,1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, 111.

3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and othersecurity holders owning or holding 1 per cent or more oftotal amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are:(If there are non, so state.) There are none.

4. That the two paragraphs next above, giving the namesof the owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any,contain not only the list of stockholders and security holdersas they appear upon the books of the company but also, incases where the stockholders or security holder appears uponthe books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduci-ary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whomsuch trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two para-graphs contain statements embracing affiant's full knowledgeand belief as to the circumstances and conditions under whichstockholders and security holders who do not appear uponthe books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securi-ties in a capacity other than that of a bona flde owner; andthis affiant has no reason to believe that any other person,association, or corporation has any interest direct or indi-rect in the said stock, bonds, or other securities than as sostated by him.

5. That the average number of copies of each issue of thispublication sold or distributed, through the mails or other-wise, to paid subscribers during the six months preceding thedate shown above is (This information is requiredfrom daily publications only.)

MORITZ J. LOEB.

Sworn to and subscribed before this 1st day of October, 1926.

ttheWriteGipfor Children

Individual Mame«4 fift

PENCILSETS*!^De Luxe Set: I £2jFinest genuine sheepskin

leather case with coin pocket,richly embossed. Any name

engraved in 18 kt. gold. Con-tains pencils and penholder in as-

Sorted colors, point protector, ruler,sharpener. Absolutely supreme in

Its class.

Send Check, Money Order 01 U. S. Postage.U. S. PENCIL CO.. Inc.

487 Broadway New YorkDEPT. 37 Z

You are a SCANDINAVIAN?Why don't you read

MY TIDthe only revolutionary Scandinavian working-

man's paper in the United States?SUBSCRIBE NOW! $2.00 a year, $1.00 6 monthsSend in your order:

NY TID, Scandinavian Weekly,2003 N. California Ave. Chicago. III.

(SEAL) S. T. Hammersmark.(My commisison expires May 22, 1928.)

The Youth Are The Future BuildersOf The American Labor Movement

THE YOUNG WORKERHELPS THEM IN THEIR FIGHT

SUBSCRIBE!$1.00 a year 50c. 6 months

Send this blank in now!

THE YOUNG WORKER. 1113 Washington Blvd.,CHICAGO, ILL.

Enclosed find $ for months.Send The Young Worker to:

Name ...

Address

City State

SUBSCRIBE TO

2Leadinsf Organs

of the

I

COMMUNISTINTERNATIONAL

THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO.

IS NOW EXCLUSIVE AGENT

Official Organs of the Leading Body of theWorld Communist Movement.

"The Communist Inter-national" is the official or-gan of the Executive Com-mittee of the C. I.—print-ed in English, Russian,French and German atLeningrad, Russia. Theeditorial board consists ofoutstanding figures of theworld Communist move-ment—and the contents ofeach issue is a source ofinformation on every im-portant phase of Commu-

nist theory and practice, as well as on every de-velopment in the world Labor movement.

SINGLE COPY 25 CENTS—$1.25 SIX MONTHS—?2.50 A YEAR. In bundles 18 cents a copy—un-

sold copies NOT RETURNABLE.

INTERNATIONAL PRESS CORRESPONDENCEThe revolutionary press of all countries is sup-

plied most valuable features and data throughthis source. To the intelligent worker, student oractive member of the revolutionary labor move-ment, the INPRECOR should be a permanentguide to every event and development affectinglabor.

$6.00 a Year $3.00 Six Months

SUBSCRIBE! DAILYCHICAGO,

Enclosed $ ............ for ........ months subscription

to C. I ................. and ............ months INPRECOR.

Name ..................................................................................

Street .................................................................................

City .................................................. State .............. .........

1917-1926How it all happened.

Ten Days That Shook the WorldBy JOHN REED $1.50

Nine Years of RevolutionIn Agriculture nad industry.

Whither Russia?By LEON TROTSKY

In foreign relations.Oil Imperialism

By LOUIS FISCHER

In the village.Broken Earth

By MAURICE HINDUS

In the city.Russia Today

In the school.Education in Soviet Russia

By SCOTT NEARING

In literature.Literature and Revolution

By LEON TROTSKY

$1.50

$2.00

$2.00

$1.75

$1.50

$2.50

In the theater.The New Theatre and Cinema of Soviet

RussiaBy HUNTLEY CARTER $6.00

NEW BOOKSThe Peasant War in Germany

By FRIEDRICH ENGELS $1.50

First time in English.

The 18th Brumaire of Louis BonaparteBy KARL MARX $1.50

A neio translation of the great Marxianclassic.

The Woman Worker and the TradeUnions

By THERESA WOLFSON $1.75

A detailed study of woman labor inAmerica.

Mrs. Socrates, a NovelBy FRITZ MAUTHNER $2.00

A defense of the most notorious scold inhistory.

INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO.INCORPORATED

381 FOURTH AVENUE NEW YORK

ELEMENTS OF POLITICALEDUCATION

By A. Berdnikov and F. Svetlof

/ ndi'v UK ifeiK'i'ul editorship ofN. I. BUCHARIN

I I " / /A I'.rp.'anatovi/ iio/r* in Ihi ,\ni<vie<ni ''dition

hi/ \lr.rinider Hitti'lnmn

A NEW publication offering a complete course in theelements of political education to every worker. This

unusual work has served as a text-book in the schoolsof Soviet Russia.

Written in the form of questions and answers, it in-cludes a complete reference list to literature on all sub-jects dealt with.

The bibliography refers to literature in three lan-guages.

Following the text of the book there is a completeU;ble of contents reformulating every question raised.

IN THIS VOLUME

Tha Philosophy, Economicsand Politics of Marxism.

Ths Teachings and Prac-tices of Leninism.

DEALING WITH

1. Fundamental Conception*of Political Economy.

>. The development of Cap-italism to the epoch ofFinance.

•:>. Finance Capital and Im-perialism.

'/. War and the Fate of Cap-italism.

•~>. The development*! it\nomic Forms.

6'. Voiiintunist Society andIhi Transition Period.

7. Htute ami (government.

FORCLASS WORK

andSELF-STUDY

\o worker can do withoutHi its book. Printed hi tiroeditions.

$1.00

in durable covers

$1.50

in n "pedal cloth boundlibrai']i edition.

OFF THE PRESS

ABOUT OCTOBER 15

When You Cometo This Problem

"Yes,but Which am I to read?"

Consult the nen: descriptive

CATALOGUEJnut Off the Press!

Hundred* of books and pamphletson all subjects.

TRADE UNIONS — RUSSIA — HIS-

TORY — SOCIAL STUDIES — PO-LITICAL ECONOMY — SCIENCE —

PHILOSOPHY — COMMUNISM —

LITERATURE, ART and POETRY.

He-tit Free on Request

DAILY WORKER PUB. CO.

1113 W. Washington Blvd. Chicago, III.

Please send new catalogue lo:

Name

Streel

State