The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 24, 1925, Page 13

Bolshevism or Trotskyism? (Cabitsinelh aia from page 2) According to his view, the party must become a combination of various tend- encies and fractions, and that it shall not immediately eomduct the state and economic apparatus, but leave more scepe for bourgeois specialists, etc. This idea of Comrade Trotzky would in the present international and inner* political situation, logically lead in the best case to the substitution of the Bolshevik Party by a “broad” “labor party,” after the model of the English MacDonald labor party in a “Soviet edition.” It is quite possible that Com- rade Trotzky has not thought out his idea to its logical conelusion, but hé is steering in this direction, unless he returns to Bolshevism. A party which has to work under such conditions needs a number of transmission belts to secure its influ- ence upon the peasantry, upon the employees, upon the intelligenzia, etc. The system of levers which secures the dictatorship of the proletaniat is complicated (Soviets, trade unions, etc.). But it does not follow from this that the party can become a block of tendencies, a sort of “parliament of opinions.” It is a matter of course that the Bol- shevik Party im the year 1924, cannot simply copy the Bolshevik Party of, say 1914, or even of 1917. We cannot limit ourselves merely to admitting workers into our party as members. By means of the Lenin recruitment we did everything possible in order to increase the number of industrial What Is A Liberal? HAT isa “liberal”? Judging from the Nation, the chief liber- al magazine, a liberal is a self-inflated personage who never says in a clear, direct and concise manner what can be said with an obscure, half-hearted, bewildered, muddle-headed, and doubt- ing phraseolegy. A liberal prides himself on his doubts. He wants to be fair, wants to weigh both sides. The test of a liberal is this—when a decision is forced upon him, he al- ways favors the most reactionary course. And the doubt, according to the liberal rules, must be expressed in high-falutin’ sentences. Take for instance the book review in the Dec. 10 issue of the Nation, en- titled “Mussolini, Pro and Con.” A biackguard fascist named Luigi Villari has written a bock on the “Fascista Regeneration,” which is a pean of praise for the arch murderer Musso- lini. But the Nation, true to its liberal tradition, must be fair to Mussolini. “Italy needed force vigorously applied in the right direction,” says Tenney Frank, in the review of this fascist’s book. “Mussolini was there at the proper moment, preferring however, to use quantities of TNT where some of us think that a steady steam en- gine might have sufficed. But Italy has made the grade, notwithstanding the fact that she has been a bit rat- tled hy unsteady motion. It was a steep grade, too.” Nation Praises Mussolini. “There is something very appealing in Mussolini’s romantic faith in youth, his devotion to clean public service, his power to inspire disinterested work, his hatred of malingering and graft in public office.” In this statement the Nation’s i- beral tactics are followed to the let- ter. In the first place, the liberal idea of “fairness,” of “seeing both sides,” has nothing to do with gathering the facts. Mussolini made the grade, says Mr. Frank. In other words, it was a question of the rule of the working class of Italy or the rule of the bour- geoisie thru a murdering, oppressive, dictator. What tho Mussolini rules by means of the bayonet, torch and cas- tor ofl. What tho thousands of work- ers are being tortured in prison, what tho the fascisti have been canght com- mitting every crime on the prong including arson, workers in our party. For some years we held back the influx of peasants into our party. But we have now come to the conclusion that we must again admit a considerable number of pea- gants. A workers party which gov- erns the state in a peasant country, must have among its members a cer- tain percentage of peasants. The regulation of the composition of our party is a complicated and diffi- cult task. It is closely connected with the most difficult and sometimes the most delicate political problems. The party must maneuver in this connec- tion. At the present epoch the party cannot be so homogeneous as it was before the seizure of power. Therefore, the policy, and also the leadership of the party, must be as Bolshevik as it has been hitherto, as Lenin has taught us. The working class realizes its hegemony in the re- volution, and the party is the leading advance guard of the class possessing this hegemony. From this there arises the question of the inner orientation of the party. The Bolshevist Party of 1924 must base itself upon the picked troops of its members, upon the workers. No other section outside the workers can serve as the barometer for the policy of our party. Must we therefore permit the exist- ence or the formation of a right wing in our party? We must not! It does not in the least follow that be enough for the Nation and for Tenney Frank. The liberal code has been fol- lowed. When it comes to a choice be- tween the dictatorship of the Italian- workers and the dictatorship of the capitalists thru the fascist rule, the Nation’s book reviewer chooses the blackguard blackshirts. The Utmost Confusion. It ig no accident that this reviewer praises the book by Villari, a reaction- ary Italian professor, and eliminates the viewpoint of the Italian working class. Numerous other examples of this “liberal” method of thot can be taken from the pages of the Nation, and the similar breed of petty bour- geois publications. Take for example, the review of Sherwood Anderson’s autobiography, “A Story Teller’s Story,” by Harry Hansen. This is a case of a liberal writing about a liberal’s book, and the utmost confusion results. That Sherwood Anderson insisted that when men get back to the period of individual craftsmanship, the ills of the machine age will be solved, is dwelt upon by Hansen. Hansen does not point out that the machine age is here to stay, that machines are neces- sary to supply the necessities and comforts of life, and that the work- ers must take control of these ma- chines and run them for their own use. For that matter, neithe: does Sher- wood Anderson. Nation Contemplates “The Soul.” These book reviews are supposed to be the work of “artists,” writing about the works of other “artists.” The “ma- chine age” the fight between the work- ers of Italy and the fascisti, the class struggle, the battles of the workers for emancipation, are looked upon by the liberals as so much material with which to adorn written sheets of pa- ers, Anderson dismissed with a phrase how he spent his life trying to find out the meaning of life. But those who were making history, fighting the battle of the working class for the overthrow of the rule of the employ- ers’ Anderson dismissed with a phrase or two about “sterile Communists.” The liberals centering around the Nation are an instrument in the af- fairs of the world only in so far as they disinfect the manure pile of the capitalist system with their con- fused ravings about “pure art” and “craftsmanship.” Like Sherwood An- derson, they spend their lives weav- ing fancies, while the workers fight the bloody battles for their own eman- cause we have to be content with a non-sufficiently homogeneous social composition of our party, that because we have to attract a certain number of non-workers into our party, we can water down the pelicy of the party, that the leadership of the party must also be heterogenous. On ‘thé con- trary! Precisely because the party, under the present conditions, cannot be so homogeneous in its composition as it was before the seizure of power, the policy of the party must, more strictly than ever, base itself upon the workers; and precisely therefore, the leadership of the party must be spe- cially firm and Leninist. The objective conditions under which our party must work at present are such that there exists the dan- ger of the formation of a right wing. He who wishes to remain true to the spirit of Lenifiism must exert all his forces in order to help the party to withstand these tendencies. With’ a skillful and correct application of the principles of Leninism to the present situation, we will succeed in prevent- ing the formation of a right wing in our party. Those comrades, however, who, like Comrade Trotzky, not only do not re- sist these tendencies, but become their representatives, those comrades who oppose the Leninist central committee which clearly perceives the danger and has to maneuver in a complicated situation, thereby become the enemies Nation Forgets Workers’ Battles. The staff of the Nation never con- siders an article for publication on ths ground that it might aid in this battle of the workers for control of industry. Take for example, the case of the oppreseod mimers of Eastern Kentucky. These miners are clamor- ing for organization. Those unions which they have fermed have been broken up by Samuel Pascoe, head of the district of the miners’ union, who co-operates with John L. Lewis and the international organizers of the United Mine Workers to keep the Bastern Kentucky fields running on a non-union basis. These workers appealed to various Hberal publications for publicity as to their extremely bad conditions. They told of the company stores, the mur- ders by mine officials, the low wages and the long heurs. But how did the “liberals” respond to these pleas. “Can Do Nothing.” Upton Sinclair wrote *o one of these miners whu appealed to Sinclair for publicity, “I have your extremely in- teresting letter, and I wish I could be of some help to you. Certainly the conditions you report should be ex- posed. I myself cannot write any- thing about them. Having written one novel about coal, it would be only re- petition for me to write another.” Sinclair sent this Kentucky min- er’s letter, written by A. Walters, a member of the l. W. W., to the Na- tion. Freda Kirchwey, managing edi- tor of the Nation, wrote back to Sin- clair, “I am enclosing herewith Mr. Walters very interesting letter on the coal situation in Eastern Kentucky, together with Mr. Lane’s comments. It seems to be history repeating it- self—another case of the West Vir- ginia story. 1! do not think there is anything we can do with the material now.” The Nation, in other words, has ample room for a book review which praises Mussolini, and it fs willing to repeat over and over again twaddle to be fed to the introspec- tive egotists who parade as “artists.” But it is not willing to print a story on the conditions of the Eastern Ken- tucky miners for fear of repeating the West Virginia story. It is not worth while, in the eyes of the Na- tion, to emphasize the heroic strug- gles of America’s miners, or any oth- er of Amecrica’s workers for that mat- ter for decent living conditions, be- cause the cane carrying intellectuals who read the paper might become fed up on stories about the masses of of Leninism, Whether this is their intention or not, it is all the same. Whether they clearly recognize this or not, it is also all the same. Let us take, for example, two prom- inent comrades (let us say comrades A and B). Both comrades are the most disciplined and excellent com- rades. Comrade A, however, came over to Bolshevism at another time and by ot : ways than comrade B. Comrade A vame from the peasant movement. Comrade B came from the workers’ movement, he has been a Bolshevik for twenty years. Our party needs both. When, however, comrade A begins to develop within the party in a certain manner, as so often hap- pens, and begins to demand that the policy of the party shall be based, not upon the workers but upon the pea- sants, or when he begins to demand that the general staff of the party should be transformed into a bleck of various groups—what would our party say to this comrade A in this event? Something similar, but in a more serious form, is now being done by Comrade Trotzky. He is giving ex- pression to everything in the party which is not Bolshevik. Can the party tolerate this? Is it to be wondered if the party admin- isters such a severe rebuke to Com- rade Trotsky? (To be continued) By KARL REEVE America’s workers. “So Sorry.” Winthrop D. Lane, writing from “Croton-On-the-Hudson,” says, “I have read Mr. Walters’ letter to Upton Sin- clair. Eastern Kentucky is certainly one of the most exploited and badly treated parts of the coal fields, and the conditions that Mr. Walters deseribes are no doubt, substantially true. But there is nothing, or at most little, in these conditions diferent from the conditions in West Virginia. “An article about Eastern Kentucky would afford a new geographical name, and one might pick out some new as- pects, but this I doubt. | do not think any article on it could add much to hitherto published information about the ways of industrial autocrats and the facts of the industrial struggle. Neither do | know anybody who could write such an article.” The Ostrich Hides Its Head. One can imagine Mr. Lane, after giving his verdict that the Nation is not going to print the coal miner’s story, yawning and looking with a bor- ed air out of the window at the beau- tiful countryside bordering the Hud- son. Lane is well enough versed in the magazine business to know that a “new angle” could easily be found if he were interested in finding it. He could also find someone to write this article if he cared to. But Lane does not want to bore the readers of the Nation with too many facts about the “industrial struggle,” he does not want to drag them away from their con- templation of themselves as “artists.” Nor does he have the heart to ask one of the literary lights of the Nation to write about Eastern Kentucky. He would rather they would stick to their merry game of “fairly” considering all subjects—and always siding with the existing system and with the ex- ploiting class when a real decision ts unavoidable. Gracefully, artistically, with a few regrets and a few tears shed about the poor workers, the Na- tion sides with the bourgeoisie when a crisis arises. The moral is, when you want to be confused about the class struggle, buy the Nation. If you want to join the workers in their struggle for power, buy the Workers’ Monthly and The DAILY WORKER. Liane Te Sait, Worker tn hig