The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 22, 1925, Page 12

vy tad ~ (RANI . os e ~_> Lm A REPLY TO WOLFE’S UNCRITICAL “CRITIQUE” (Continued from page 3) sion as to dates is due to his pedantry in simply affirming to himself that any peaceful period of capitalism would have to fit neatly within the confines of the period of the hege- mony of the textile industry. It is true that the rapid growth and domi- nant position of the textile industry furnished the basis for what Lenin has termed the “so-called ‘peaceful development’ of capitalism.” But how? Not simply, as Wolfe tells us, “be- cause the ‘struggle for markets’ with textile products as the typical ex- port does not require spheres of in- fluence, colonies, the interyention of states and armies, etc.”, but also by the very fact of the expansion of the market itself. Capitalism” was “boil- ing over” within its narrow state confines and the expansion of the market provided an escape valve. It was this that made posible compara- tive “class peace” in the home coun- tries of capitalism. To conceive of the “peaceful” phase of capitalist his- tory apart from the development of the class struggle, as Wolfe appar- ently does, is undialectical and un- Leninist. That the leaders of the Communist International do not have any such conception, ig shown by the quotation from Bukharin’s speech at the fourth congress, given above. “How are we to combat socialist- Jingoism?” asks Lenin in his pam- phlet on “The Collapse of the Second International.” “The latter is oppor- tunism which has become ripe, strong, and impudent, during the long, com- paratively ‘peaceful’ era of capital- ism.” (page 53.) Was this the second and third quar- ters of the 19th century? Was it in the revolutionary upheavals of 1830, 1848 and 1871 ‘that opportunism be- came ripe, strong and impudent? Or was it in the parliamentary epoch which followed? + open se played their role in the development of the so-called 'peacetul—peried-"—It-is very import- ant to bring this out here, because Comrade Wolfe’s main trouble comes from the fact that he cannot think of super-profits except as an attribute of the later period of world imperial- ism. To him they belong only to the warlike era of capitalism whereas actually they were one of the bases for the establishment of the ‘“‘peace- ful period.” Bukharin, in his answer to Boris at the fifth congress of the Comintern, quotes Marx as follows: “3. B. Say, in his ceamments on Constanzie’s translation of Ricardo, made just one correct observation on foreign trade. Profits can also be made by cheating.’ One wins what the other loses. Gains and tosses within a country cancel each other. But this is not the case be- tween various countries. And even according to Ricardo’s own theory —which Say does not notice—three working days of one country can be exchanged for one working day of another. Here the law of values must be essentially modified. Or, as highly skilled, complex labor within a country contains a certain proportion of unskilled simple labor, so the working days of one country can bear a certain proportion to the working days of another coun- try. In such a case the richer coun- try exploits the poorer. . . .” And Bukharin adds: “The decisive factor Is that we clearly see that this doctrine of super-profits of richer countries Is an entirely Marxlan doc- trine,” In the paragraph quoted Marx Is dealing with super-profits realized In trade, quite before the epoch of world imperialism—super-profits which can be realized from the sale of flannel underwear as well as from the sale of fron and steel. ism. But how was capitalism able to grant reforms and amelioration of the conditions of the workers? ‘Thrn the super-profits, which were partly shared with the upper strata of la bor. I was also interested to show that this did not put an end ‘to the class struggle, but that it merely offered the chance to the opportunists to be- tray the class struggle and sell out to the capitalists, No article such as mine on Labor and Empire would be complete without a suggestion of how the opportunists and reformists be- trayed the working class during the period of the so-celled “peaceful” de- velopment of capitalism. When textiles gave way to iron and steel as the dominant industry the problem of capitalism had become not simply one of extension of the mar- ket but also Of export of capital, ac- quisition of raw materials, etc. More- over, monopoly was displacing “free competition” in the home countries of capitalism. The race for colonial pos- sessions was om, full blast. For these reasons, and because of the special at- tributes of the iron and steel industry which differentiate it from the peace- fully expanding textile industry, this later period is characterized by in- creasingly war-like developments be- twene nations and an intensification of the class struggle at home. UT it must not be supposed that this change came about all at once, or that it can be explained by the mere fact of export of iron and steel products instead of textiles. It is true that Wolfe mentions also the other factors (such as export of capi- tal, colonies, spheres of influence, etc. —in short, imperialism) which must be considered in connection with the iron and steel industry. But can he maintain that imperialism was full- blown in 1871? ‘ Or that, as he says in his criticism, “the war-like period of capitalism in the Leninist sense, be- gins when Gomez says the peaceful period of capitalism begins?” (Em- phasis his.) As a matter of fact, the so-called “peaceful” or “stabilization” period of capitalism continued and was actually further developed by some of the very factors which later became integrated into the system of imperialism (i. e. super-profits from the colonies.) The period lasted prac- tically until the last decade of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. “Let us recall what induced a sub- stitution of the present-day impe- rialist era for the former ‘peaceful’ era of capitalism,” says Lenin in his “Collapse of the Second Inter- national.” “The facts are that free competition has given way to capi- talist monopolies, and that the whole globe has heen divided up. It is clear that both these facts and factors have a real world signifi- cance. Free trade and peaceful competition were possible and nec- essary as long as there was nothing to hinder capital from increasing the number of its colonies and from seizing unoccupied lands in Africa and elsewhere. . . the division of the globe compels the rivals to pass from peaceful expansion to an arm- ed struggle for a re-division of col- onies and of spheres of influence.” (page 29.) And in his book on “Imperialism, the Final Stage of Capitalism,” he says: “When the colonies of the Europ to the World commercial otisis of the period.” ‘What is there in this to con- tradict my statement? Nothing, On the contrary, it merely serves to bear out my contention that the same gen- eral factors which had caused Europ ean capitalism to “boil over” took effect in the United States, “later and In a mecessarily modified form.” My critic goes on to say that the “class peace” that followed 1894 was only relative, which of course, it was —altho it was marked enough for every outstanding writer on American labor history to take note of it. His comment on this fs that the relative “class peace” “was caused by the ex- pansion due to monopoly growth and other factors. . .” My only answer is that this is exactly what I have been maintaining. But, says Wolfe, this “class peace” “is not the kind of ‘peace’ to which Lenin’s quotation on ‘peaceful period’ refers.” Here I must begin to differ with my critic again. Relative “class peace” within a country is naturally not all that is. meant by the term, “so-called ‘peaceful period’ of capital- ism”—indeed it may continue to pre- vail long. after the nation in question is embarked on imperialist wars, as I think I have already shown. Never- theless, the relationship between “class peace” and the so-called “peace- ful period” as a whole is of funda- mental importance. I refer my critic to the various quotations from Lenin which I have given above. LFE blithely misrepresents me as having said in my article that the “peaceful” period in the United States, when strikes lessened in scope, number and intensity, “was purchased at the expense of the back- ward and undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, thru the policy of imperialism.” What I did say was: “In Europe, the social-democratic parties built themselves into mass or- ganizations. The “peaceful period of capitalism” was an international phe- nomenon, as Lenin has shown us. It was purchased at the expense of the backward and undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, thru the policy of imperialism.” It might be reasonably objected that the word “imperialism” is used some- what loosely here, but the import of the above sentences is clearly quite different from what Wolfe’s misquot- ation implies. If my critic questions that the so-called “peaceful period” was purchased at the expense of the backward countries, it would be well for him to re-read the following al- tg quoted passage from Bukhar- n: “Following the revolutionary epoch of the middle of last century, an entirely different historic epoch in the development of the capital- ist system set in. It was the epoch of the gigantic growth of capital- ism. This growth was chiefly based upon the colonial policy of the bour- geoisie, and the stupendous develop- ment of continental industry which was chiefly stimulated by the ex- *ploitation of the colonial peoples.” hours, inhumanly low wages, dispos- sessing backward peoples from the land, and forced labor, Moreover, I went Into of these factors in detail. I that I ought not to have gaid the rate of expivitation is refiect- Soa upon he declares innocently that “the strike épidemle in question was the general industrial develop- fusion is due to the fact that in one paragraph I speak of the rate of 6x ploitation and in the following para graph of the rate of profit. OW as to the section of my article dexling with the corruption of the buréaucratie trade union offtclaldom as well as a whole section of the upper strata of skilled workers (the labor aristocracy), thru their, share in the super-profits, Wolfe speaks of many “mistakes in this conneotion but he does not show a single one. It is untrue that the passage is vague or that I fail to draw a distinction between the union officialdom and the privileged workers making up the labor aristocracy. ' giv it I say in my article (page 422 the Workers’ Monthly): “It is not only fakers that are corrupted in this way (thru a share in the super-profits), but the entire crust of the trade union movement,- the so-called ‘labor aristocracy’ con- sisting principally of the most high- ly skilled workers and workers en- gaged in. privileged trades.” On page 423.1 go on to say: “The whole matter is not as simple as the payment of a bribe—altho In the case of reactionary trade union officials, bribery, “rake-offs” and the awarding of all sorts of contracts are no inconsiderable item. . . ~” “As for the labor aristocracy,” | continue, “its share of the super- profits comes primarily in the form of increased wages—and indeed all other sources of its income (insur- ance schemes, etc.) really constitute an addition to wages.” I explain that “the selling out of the reactionary officials is in this sense a special problem which the workers will one day deal with as it deserves.” the passage quoted by Wolfe— quite out of its context—I am re- ferring to the labor aristocracy and not to the bureaucrats. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the entire paragraph from which this quotation is abstracted will convince himself of this at once. I stand by the paragraph exactly as it is, and Wolfe’s suggestion that I might have meant to say “former” where I said “latter” is sheer non- sense, Comrade Wolfe's “critique” closes with a final misconception. He sets forth the novel idea that the export of capital does not help to build up a native capitalist class in the back- ward countries. According to him, it is not the export of capital that cre- ates the native bourgeoisie, but the simple export of commodities. Does not Comrade Woife know that the countries is comparatively recent? This class sprang into prominence ment of the colonies and semi-colo- jnies, a development which had been systematically retarded in the period when export was primarily of com- modities, but which became an in- evitable concomitant of the export of capital. HE theses of the second congress of the Comintern declare: “Owing to the imperialist policy of Ate Industrial develop- ment in the les, a proletarian class, in the strict sense of the word could not come Into existence until recently. The ingenious craft In- dustries were destroyed to make room for the products of the cen- to the land to produce food, grains, and raw materials for export to for. elgn lands,” Obylously there could be no bour geoisig without a proletariat. The en- tire system of capitalism In the back- alone, without a host of smaller native industrial and commercial enterprises growing wp in their yery shadow, “The export of capital,” says Len- in in’ ffs book on ‘Imperialism, “tends to hasten greatly the devel- opment of capitalism in the country to which it is exported.” (page 66.) r cannot be denied that export of capital carries with it the tend- (Continued on page 7), » a es, a]