The Daily Worker Newspaper, May 17, 1924, Page 8

Foster’s Reply To Nearin EAR COMRADE NEARING:—I must take issue flatly and funda- mentally with practically all the points developed by you in your letter of Jan, 28th relative to the policies of the Workers Party and the Trade Union Educational League. As I understand the situation, your analysis of social conditions is faulty, your facts are in- accurate, and your conclusions are wrong. The four main points you would establish, and which I shall con- sider one by one, seem to be about as follows: «1, There is no revolutionary senti- ment among the working masses of this country, save in a few localities and among the foreign-born work- ers. 2. The re&ctionary state of the labor movement, especially as it is expressed in trade union conven- tions, is a true reflection of the state of mind of the broad rank and file of labor. 3. The militant program of the W. P. and T. U. E. L., carrying with it an active participation in all the struggles of the workers, is not only wrong in principle and futile in operation, but also actually harmful to the left-wing movement in gen- eral. 4. The program of the left-wing should not be to plunge into the workers’ struggles but to carry on a careful and systematic campaign of educating and organizing the scanty revolutionary forces in pre- paration for the struggles of the future. % The weakness of your whole con- * ception is that it is based upon the false assumption that there is no con- siderable mass revolutionary senti- ment in this country. Thruout your letter, and as the very heart of your tactical considerations, you estimate the body of revolutionary sentiment as being expressed solely by the small number of conscious, clear-sighted, revolutionaries. You overlook com- pletely the revolutionary significance of the prevailing discontent among the working masses. And by ignoring this tremendous factor you naturally draw conclusions which are valueless for our movement. NDENIABLY there is a_ great volume of discontent among the masses of American workers and farmers. This arises inevitably out of the clash of class interests within the frame of capitalism. This discontent, it is true, is mostly unconscious, blind, stupid, timid, and easily misled. But it is essentially revolutionary, never- theless. It is the raw stuff of which revolutions are made. Revolutions are not brought about by the type of clear- sighted revolutionists that you have in mind, but by stupid masses who are goaded to desperate revolt by the pressure of social conditions, and who are led by straight-thinking revolu- tionaries who are able to direct the storm intelligently against capitalism. Never mind how stupid the mass dis- content now is in America; never mind if the workers thinkyas you say they do, that “times will pick up again under the present system.” The un- rest is basically revolutionary, not- withstanding. Capitalism cannot allay this discontent by granting the de- mands of the exploited. It must in- crease in volume, intensity, and in- telligence until finally it culminates in the revolution. You make a funda- mental error when you conclude that the only revolutionarw discontent is that of the handful of class conscious militants, and when you ignore the far greater factor, the general discontent of the masses. HE W. P. and the T. U. E. L. do not assume that there exists a large body of conscioi®ly revolution- ary sentiment. On the contrary they -merely “assume” the unquestionable, deep (even if vague) discontent of the masses. They know that the real function of the conscious left-wing is to educate, organize, intensify, dis- cipline, and direct this discontent un- til it develops sufficient clarity, vol- ume, and militancy to precipitate the final struggle with capitalism. You say that radical sentiment must be created by education, while we add te this that above all it must be develop- ed out of the existing mass discontent. Your conception that the conscious elements are the only revolutionary force leads straight to the isolation of our movement and to its degenera- tion into a studious, sterile, cloistered Communist sect. The W. P. and T. U. E. L. conception, in direct contra- diction to yours, makes inevitably for a broad mass movement of revolt and for an increasing participation in the ever-widening, ever-deepening class struggle; it makes for a real fighting Communist movement. mand, all attempts at fundamental im- provement, which attempts almost al- ways disturb the leaders friendly re- lations with the employers or their edntrol over the unions. ‘HIS struggle between the rank and file and the leaders of the trade unions is now at a most critical stage. Innumerable instances of it might be cited, taken from every union in the country. Whoever does not perceive it knows nothing of the real forces at work in the labor movement. TRANGELY enough, practically all the incidents cited by you to show the “consent” of the rank and file to the acts of their leaders are, when N this article Comrade William Z. Foster takes issue with Scott Nearing on the question of policies and tactics to be pursued by the Workers Party. It is a reply to an article by Nearing published in this magazine Saturday, May 10th, 1924, Our readers will do well to carefully examine and study the two points of view expressed by Nearing and Foster respectively, because the matter dealt with in these articles are of supreme importance to the revolutionary movement of the American workers.—Editor. In your letter, as part of your gen- * eral case that there is no real mass revolutionary discontent in this coun- try, you make the rash assertion that the rank and file of the unions are as reactionary as their leaders. You even go so far as to say that Gompers is probably to the left of the general mass of unionists. Then, to support this broad contention, you cite the indifference of the organized masses at the expulsion of Wm. F. Dunne, the rejection of amalgamation and a labor party, and the repudiation of Soviet Russia at the A. F. of L. convention, as well as the continued imprisonment of Mooney, Sacco and Vanzetti, the discrediting of Alex Howat, the ex- pulsion of left-wing militants in the needle trades, and various other out- rages by trade union officials and capi- talists. You claim that the views of the leaders on these matters are shar- ed by the rank and file because both have gone to the capitatist schools, they read the capitalist papers, belong to the churches; vote the oid party tickets—in short, the rank and file have been “taken into the camp by the enemy” just as much as their leaders have. UCH a contention, especially com- ing from one undertaking to use the Marxian method of analysis, is in- excusably erroneous. It runs counter to the truth on every side. The fact is the rank and file of the unions are far and away more radical than their leaders. And naturally so, for their economic position compels them to be. The trade union leaders are actually and ideologically part of the petty bourgeoisie. .ney draw large salaries; they live the life of the middle class; they are tied by a thousand and one filiments to the employers themselves; hey have only a secondary interest in the struggle between the workers and exploiters; they feel no urgent and immediate interest in the build- ing and militant utilization of the workers’ organizations; they are con- tent to let well enough alone, so long as their own economic position, as ex- pressed thru the regular receipt of their salaries, is assured. Like the rest of the petty bourgeoisie, they are active defenders of capitalism. N the other hand, the workers are engaged in a direct struggle against the employers. For them the most vital consequences depend upon a successful prosecution. Despite their capitalistic training thru the newspa- pers, churches, political parties, etc. (which it would be idle to deny) they almost instinctively rally to the sup- port of practical movements making for the strengthening—numerically, structurally, ideologically—of their po- litical and industrial organizations. The tremendous spread of the amal- gamation movement is proof of that. Between the petty bourgeoisie lead- ers and the working class rank and file, a struggle goes on constantly over the revolutionizing of the labor move- ment, with the leaders desperately re- sisting, by every nfeans at their com- 4 viewed properly, striking illustrations of the greater degree of radicalism among the actual workers inthe shops. Consider the Portland conven- ton of the A. F. of L.—what expres- sion did the rank and file get there? Practically none. That was almost entirely a gathering of officials. Fully 150 of them violated their instructions when they voted against amalgama- tion, the labor party, and recognition of Soviet Russia—a flagrant but typ- ical case of official suppression of rank and file radicalism. Or consider the ease of Tom Mooney—have not the rank and file surged again and again, with their limited means of expres- sion, in his behalf. And have not the leaders always broken up their move- ments of protest? The same is true of the Sacco-Vanzetti case. And in the case of the International Ladies’ Gar- ment Workers; if the left-wing had demanded such support the rank and file would have split that organization in two. UT let us conclude with the Howat ease. How you can get any com- fort out of that for your theory is a mystery. It is one of the most flagrant cases on record of violent rank and file suppression by a reactionary of- ficialdom controlling the organization machinery. At the recent’ Miners’ Convention, Lewis did not dare to give the rank and file a chance to express themselves on the matter, so, like trade union leaders generally, in hand- ling radical movements, he used the full power of the organization to crush the Howat movement, arbitrari- ly adjourning the Convention to pre- vent a fair vote being taken. Fully two-thirds of the delegates were in open protest but could do nothing. Then, because the rank and file have no effective means to counteract such outrages by their officials, you -con- clude that they. acquiesce in them. Such conclusions, which are typical of many in your letter, completely in- validate your analysis df the situation. Following logically upon your con- * tentions that there is no mass revolutionary sentiment in America and that the rank and file of the labor movement are as deeply reactionary as their leaders, you condemn the W. P. and T. U. E. L. policy of maneuver- ing the masses on a large scale as is expressed in our various campaigns. Your objections would seem to fall under two general heads: (a) that we waste our strength because the non- revolutionary masses are unprepared to accept our program, and, (b) that we demoralize our own forces by car- rying on maneuvers too complicated for them to follow. Now let us see what there is to these contentions. HE mistake you make in this mat- ter is to tacitly assume that the left-wing movement is going to the masses with a program so advanced that they cannot understand or accept it, and that therefore we cannot en- list them under our leadership. This would be true if we were to confine ourselves simply to the advocacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat and other revolutionary Communist con- cepts. But such is not the case. In addition to the ultimate revolutionary program, the W. P. and the T. U. EB. L. have a program of every-day work, attuned to the’ prevailing discontent and the backward state of the work- ing class. The latter tan and do un- derstand the need for amalgamation and the labor party, and they are fol- lowing the left-wing lead in the cam- paign for these and other measures. With such a program of practical work, coupled to our general revolu- tionary teaching, we can say, yes, the sentiment is here, what we have to do is to organize and lead it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. The fact that hundreds of thousands of workers are following the lead of the W. P. and the T. U. E. L. on the political and industrial fields is the best possible proof that they are ready for our program and leader- ship. S for your second objection, that our rank and file cannot keep pace with us, your fears are ground- less. If a third party is formed with LaFollette or some similar at its head, and the Workers Party has to sup- port it, the latter will not demoralize itself thereby. Quite the contrary would be the case. The best proof of this is our practice at present. Look at Minnesota. There the W. P. is deeply involved in the Farmer-Labor Party, which is a third party, as we understand the term. But, is it weak- ened or demoralized by this fact? Not at all. The W. P. has more real power and influence iri Minnesota than in any state in the Union, and its members are intelligently following the strug- gle. Altho supporting the third party, they are pointing out its weaknesses and limitations. The same will be done in the coming national campaign if the W. P. co-operates with the third party thru an alliance. The tacfic is not complicated. The time was when revolutionists held the notion that they could not participate in the mass unions and still maintain their revo- lutionary purity, but that has been thoroughly exploded. The same fate awaits the idea that they cannot safe- ly take part in the mass movements of the workers on the political field. If the W. P. and the T. U. E. L. cannot function and prosper in the every-day political and industrial struggles of the masses, then they have no right to life. As a natural consequence of your * conception that the only available revolutionary force in the American labor movement is the small body of conscious reyolutionists, you outline a plan for the careful education, or- ganization and development of this precious little nucleus. You say, “our task involves first, education and sec- ond, organization.” You say almost nothing about utilizing the organiza- tion in the struggle. This is because you can conceive it fundamentally as an educational group, standing apart from the great masses and dealing largely with the theoretical aspects of the struggle. You would build it up slowly and cautiously. You would make of it, if your program were fol- lowed, simply a Communist sect. OW, with such a conception, the ~ moderh Communist movement has nothing to do. Above all, the left wing is a fighting organization. We are soldiers in the class struggle, not merely students of it. The left wing is the vanguard of the proletariat, not simply in a theoretical, but also in an actual sense, It must not stand aside performing mental drill stunts and awaiting the great day, but it must participate increasingly in all the struggles of the workers. Bdu- cation we must‘have; likewise organ- ization; but both are futile without action, The struggle is the breath of life to every Communist organiza- tion. — T is the function of the W. P. and T. U. E. L. to plunge into the strug- gles of the workers and by the exam- ple of practical leadership to secure control over the masses. The neces- sity for the left wing to do this, is (Continued on Page 8.) g| , Fe