The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 15, 1925, Page 12

; MR. LANSBURYS’ EMPIRE. - The following article was written for the Communist press by Comrade C. M. Roebuck of Britain, takes issue with George Lansbury on a very im- portant question. In a recent debate in the House of Commons Lansbury and such a prominent “left winger” as David Kirkwood, with others, walked | into the division with J, H. Thomas and Stanley Baldwin on the question of giving preference to goods manu- factured within the confines of the British Empire. This action has caused quite a furore in radical cir- cles in England and Comrade Roe- buck put the issue fair and square to Lansbury, who usually is in the op- position to the right wing of the La- bor Party. * * * Judging from the “Empire” number of his Weekly, it is very difficult to imagine that Lansbury is still on the side of the workers. Perhaps the best thing is to ask him a few questions. George Lansbury! In your article last week you say that your support of colonial preference “was a vote in favor of-admitting only those goods which are produced under fair con- ditions.” Are you ignorant, or do you only pretend ignorance, of the fact that the vast bulk of the goods con- cerned in the vote are produced in the Empire under slave conditions? You go on to justify yourself that “had you been allowed to do so,” you would have put in words insisting on “fair conditions.” Are you ignorant, or do you only pretend ignorance, of the fact which hundreds of thousands of workers knew perfectly well long before—namely, that it was just these few “words” (just a trifle, just the ending of British exploitation in the colonies) which the Tories would never allow you to put in? You say that if the criticism is true ! that Preference duties only benefit the capitalists, then “we should give up boasting of Snowden’s wonderful Bud- get.” Are you ignorant or do you only pretend ignorance of the fact that the Communists who are criticising you today are the very people who were alone in exposing Snowden’s “Labor Imperialist” Budget, at the time when you did not raise a finger to support them? You say that, after you had been | beaten on the abolition of food taxes altogether, you and your friends “de- termined to support the partial aboli- tion embodied in the Preference pro- posals, if the goods were produced under fair conditions.” Have you for- gotten, or do you only pretend to have forgotten, the unimportant little fact that you and your friends supported the Preference proposals even without that saving clause, and even tho, not being infants in arms, you knew per- fectly well beforehand that you could never secure it? You say that we cannot refuse to take action against “the importation of foreign goods, produced under foul conditions, in competition with work- ers in our own land or in the Do- minions.” Are you blind, or are you shamming blindness, to the fact that goods are being produced “under foul conditions,” and imported in huge volume, from a section of the British Empire (not more than 85 per cent of it) which you by an oversight omitted from the catalogue—namely, the colonies? You refer to “a new way by which international action can be taken”— the International Labor Office at Gen- eva, whose director is “expected” to keep certain records, and where labor and capitalist representatives meet “to discuss and formulate plans”: and you go on to declare that, “with a true spirit of comradeship between the workers, it is not only possible but imperative” that we should come to an understanding about sweated labor conditions making trade impos- sible, What do you mean, George Lans- bury? Do you mean that the director does keep records of colonial exploita- tion? Do you mean that the Geneva “plans” have ever got further than paper—or that they are likely to? Do you mean that this “understanding” can be arrived at thru the I. L. 0.? Are you, a “Left-Winger,” ignorant —or are you shamming ignorance—of the fact, well known to hundreds of thousands of workers, that the I. L. O. is merely a part of the decorations of the League of Nations—the latest capitalist device for preventing world peace? You say that, when there is a labor government again, “we (who? Mac- Donald? Clynes? Thomas?) shall cre- ate a Commonwealth of partner na- tions, in place of the Empire founded on force. That sounds very fine; but you also say, a line or two higher up: “We shall not assist in breaking up the British Empire.” Now how do you reconcile these statements, George Lansbury? = Are you ignorant, or do you sham ignorance, of the fact that the vast majority of the Indian people (capi- talists, workers, and peasants) want independence, and that the same ap- plies to Ceylon and Egypt? Are you aware that in 1919 and 1920 rising in these three countries were drowned in blood by British Imperialism? And would you kindly tell us what you are going to do when these na- tions demand independence from your government, and, being disappointed, take up arms against you? And will you usher in your Labor By C. M. Roebuck Government by withdrawing the armed forces from all these territories, as the visible sign that they are not “free partners”? Or does you hatred of bloodshed not carry you as far-as this very obvious way of preventing it? And then you say’that the Bolshe- viks, “faced with the Russian Empire, claim that they gave freedom of choice - to Georgia, the Ukraine, Finland, Po- land, etc.” What exactly do you mean to insinuate, George Lansbury? Did they or did they not work for inde- pendence of the subject peoples, years before the Yall of Tsardom? Did they or did they not actually give freedom of choice? Why not speak out in the language of the capitalist press and Emma Goldman, if that is what is in your mind? Or, if it is not in your mind, why use such ambiguous lan- guage? : Can it be, George Lansbury, that you want to hide the ambiguity of your own position thereby? Can it be that you want to lead the workers by using phrases that sould revolution- ary, while at all costs preventing them from drawing revolutionary’ conclu- sions? We shall be sorry to think 86, George Lansbury. But what are“ we to think of your suggestion that Brit- ish labor, out of the British Empire, should “create” a Commonwealth of Free Nations, or “replace” it by a Union of Free Nations—just as the Bolsheviks did wtth the Russian Em- pire—when you manage entirely to slur over that, as the experience of Russia shows, the first step towards your goal would invlove the break-up of the Empire as part of the over- throwing of the British capitalist class? - “It is time we had some straightfor- ward speaking from you, George Lansbury. That is what the workers need above all at the present time from those who claim to be their leaders! The Politcal Situation in the Twin Cities By JOHN GABRIEL SOLTIS. MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 14.—Old man Mahoney of St. Paul, reports that somebody in Minneapolis is institut- ing a movement to reorganize Minne- apolis “for practical political action, and’ free it from the visionary ele- ment which has sought to tie organ- ized labor to a movement that has no altainable objective.” That is to say, whom old man Mahoney considers it _.s Sacred duty to misrepresent @nd villifty. In this sense he is extremely practical, as a miserable tool in the hands of the democratic O’Connor’s machine of St. Paul. Labor Skates Worried. Old man Mahoney deeclares that the reorganization move was dictated by the fact, that the disgraceful defeat of the Socialist-Laborites last June, has stirred the labor fakers. And so it has. However, old man Mahoney tries to leave the impression, that the com- plete defeat of the laborites was in some way the result of their connec- tions with the left wing and the Com- munists. This is a piece of sophistry, which would do honor to a Jesuit. Nothing is farther from the truth, and it is not Mahoney’s mental senility that causes him to prevent the truth. It is something quite different. What are the political facts in this connec- tion? Proposed United Front. First of all, the Workers (Commun- ist) Party proposed 4 united front of all working class organizations, on the question of mayor and aldermanic candidates. This proposal did not en- tail the nomination of a Communist for a single office. It was an honest, senuine effort to solidify all the forces of Minneapolis labor, to fight the capitalists on the political front. Our united front proposition was not only turned down, but ignored entire- ly. The capitalists were feeding Ma- honey’s Minneapolis allies, raw meat which made them spunky. They slammed the door in the face of the left wing. Supported Capitalist Hacks. Instead of putting up a united front labor candidate for mayor, and thus yielding to the desires of the rank and file, the labor fakers headed by the versatile alderman, Bastis, sup- ported capitalist candidates for mayor. To forestall this plain treach- ery, the Communists entered their own candidate, In the political estimation of men » left wing and the Communists, | jike Mahoney and Bastis, in order to , elect the socialist laborites, an alli- | ance had to be struck with the capi- | talists, the basis of which was a com- mon fight on the Communists. They thus thot that they would insinuate themselves into the good graces of the capitalist class. Their mercenary political character, suffered, as do all such fellows, from spherical aberra- tion, : In the elections not a single left winger, not one Communist was ac- tive, for the simple reason that cir- umstances in the control of Mahon- ey’s co-workers, made it out of the question, beyond the issuance of a general statement. Splitting the Working Class. The situation was this: The social- ist laborites were hammering the Communists for no apparent reason at all. While they were doing that, they were deliberately splitting the work- ing class and preparing their own ig- nominous rout. In reality, when they slammed the door in our face, they left themselves on the outside. No traps which the capitalists set for them, Mr, Albert Bastis, their dis- tinguished trader, led them into it blindly, ° It must also be remembered that practically all of the now ex-aldermen of the laborite ilk, were elected on the basis of waging a sharp class strug- gle fight. In those days of victory, even I, W. W.'s participated in push- ing their elections. They won all along the line, The working class was aroused to a pitch of real class enthus- iasm. However, good signs, fine booze and shady political and other deals, combined with a total lack of understanding the mechar cs of the class struggle, separated them from the left wing. Power_on Increase, It is significant, is it not, that be- fore the days of red baiting, when al elements of labor acted in the united front, our political power was constantly on the increase; our eco- nomic arm was also strong. As a matter of fact, as any honest worker knows, it was the militant left wing of Minneapolis and the state, that pro- moted both political and economic sol- idarity. Precisely for these reasons, the capitalast class let loose its la- bor agents, to destroy this left wing, if possible. It is the labor fakers who are destroying the solidarity of the Minneapolis workers, and the rank and file is aware of it. Holding Fake Conferences. Since Mahoney and his allies have joined the camp of the red-baiters, there is no end of fake conferences held by the gentry. Last March Ma- honey held one in St. Paul, to elim- inate the farm-labor federation. It was too proletarian to suit them. A band-picked delegation of discredited and self-seeking politicians made up that pow-wow. But the rank and file of farmers and workers have not flocked to the program cooked up at that meeting. Minneapolis is as clean of the farm-labor association, as Mahoney is of socialism. No artifical conference. ot red-baiters will instill the workers with confidence in it. The workers demand a labor party, with a left wing leadership and a labor party they shall have! The future is ours! THE BRICK What is Truth? What is Truth? asked smilingly the World’s Tyrant of those who had said he was the World’s Great Lie? There was instant confusion in the intellectual ranks; the bookmen, the poets, the clever cynics withdrew in confusion; they could not answer the Tyrant, for they were lies, too; and their wisdom was empty, and a lie; their books were lies. There was silence and pessimism and confusion in the world, until @ great workingman suddenly grabbed a simple Brick that lay near the throne of the world, and slung it at the head of the tyrant, and hugely laughed, ho! ho! ho! here is Truth, o tyrant! This Brick 4s Truth! Useful and wonderful. Foundation of dreams, Pavement. Stuff of sewers. Material of barricades. Red as life blood, red as the earth from which wheat grows. Hard as fate, hard as the laws of science. Stuff of immense living skyscrapers. A joke, a coarse, bold workingman’s laugh flung at the head of dil- letantes and cowards. Hard, real, useful, universal. Dangerous, humorous slugger of Tyranny and Lies. ‘ This Brick is Truth, o Tyrant! “—MICHAEL GOLD. sehr more ety