The Daily Worker Newspaper, February 6, 1926, Page 11

i Reactionaries *. . Labor Movement--By Lenin ENIN’S article “On the Tasks of the Third International,” an excerpt from.which we are offering our readers today, is one of the most brilliant writings that came from his pen. On April 14, 1919, in the French social-patriotic paper, L’Humanite (which has since then been taken away from the social-patriots and be- come a good Communist Party organ), there appeared an editorial ynder the title, “The Third International.” The editorial was signed by Ram- say MacDonald, the well known leader of the English labor party. Ram- say MacDonald in this editorial deplored the formation of the Commun- ist International and attempted to show that the split caused in the Pam! movement thru the organization of this Third (the Communist) “International was not justifiable. It was in reply to this editorial, in which, in the wotds of Lenin, “There are more falsehoods than words,” that Lenin wrote the following words. The article was completed on the 14th of July and printed in the fourth issue of the “Communist Interna- tional” on August 1, 1919. By Vladimir llyitch Lenin. RAMSAY MacDONALD knows very well that we built the Third International and broke off unreservedly with the Second In- ternational because we became convinced in its hopelessness, its incorrigibility in its role. as the servant of imperialism, as a trans- mitter of the bourgeois influente, bourgeois falsehood and bour- geois corruption within the labor movement. If Ramsay Mac- Donald, wishing to discuss the Third International, evades the es- sence of the mattér, goes round and about, does not speak of the thing that ought to be spoken of—this is his fault and his crime. For the proletariat is inneed of the truth and there is nothing more harmful to its cause than a plausible, decorus, provincial felsehood. (THE question of imperialism and its connection with opportun- ism in the labor movement—with the betrayal of the work- ers’ cause by the labor leaders—was formulated long, long ago. Marx and Engels in the course of forty years, from 1852 to ‘1892, constantly pointed to the bourgeois transformation (bour- geoization) of the top layers of the working class of England as a consequence of its economic peculiarities (colonies, monopoly in the world market, etc.). Marx conquered for himself in the seventies of the past century the honor of being hated by the base heroes of the “Bern” international. tendency of his day, of the opportunists and of the reformists, because he branded many of the leaders of the English trade unions as men who sold them- selves out to the bourgeoisie or who were paid by the bour- geoisie for services rendered to its class, services rendered inside of the labor movement. At the time of the Anglo-Boer war, the Anglo-Saxon press stated the question of imperialism quite clearly. as\ the Meee the last) stage of capitalism. If my memory does n ‘ was none other than Ramsey MacDonald himself who then lcft the “Fabian Society,’—that prototype of the Bern “Internation- ; al,” that hot-house and pattern of opportunism which was char- acterized with ingenious force, clarity and truth by Engels in his correspondence with Sorge. “Fabian -imperialism’—such was then the current expression in English socialist literature. If Ramsey MacDonald has forgotten this—then so much the worse for him. “Fabian imperialism” and “social imperialism” are one and the same: socialism in words, imperialism in deeds, the growing of opportunism. into imperialism. This phenomenon has now be- come, during the war of 1914-1918 and after the war, a universal fact. The lack of understanding of this fact is the greatest blind- ness of the yellow Bern “international,” and its greutest crime. Opportunism or reformism inevitably. had to grow into soeialist imperialism or social Chauvinism of universal historic signiti- cance; for imperialism has prodtved a handful of 1nost wealthy advanced nations, robbing the entire world and by this very fact has allowed the bourgeoisie of these countries to~bribe the upper strata of the working class of these countries at an expense charged to their monoopolist super-profit (imperialism is monop- olist capitalism). it Not to see the economic inevitability of this fact under, im- perialism, is possible only to those who are either all-around ig- noramuses or else hypocrites who deceive the workers, repeating generalities concerning capitalism and this screening the bitter truth of the passage of an entire current in socialism over to the side of the imperialist bourgeoisie. And out of this fact spring two undisputable conclusions: The first conclusion: The Bern “international,” in its real historical and political role, regardless of the good. will and in- nocent wishes of any of its members, is in fact an organization of the agents of international imperialism, acting inside of the labor movement, conducting within the labor movement the bourgeois influence, bourgeois ideas, bourgeois falsehood and bourgeois . corruption. In countries of long-standing democratic parliamentary cul- . ture, the bourgeoisie has learned splendidly how to act, not alone by means of violence, but also by deceit, bribery and flattery—us- ing the most subtle forms of these methods. It is not for nothing that the “breakfasts” of the English “labor leaders” (that is of the lackeys of the bourgeoisie in the job of duping the workers) have acquired notoriety—and Engels has even spoken of them. Of the same order of things is the “charming” reception of the social-traitor Merheim by Monsieur Clemenceau, the kind re- ceptions of the leaders of the Bern “international” by the min- isters of the entente, etc., etc. “You will train them and we shall buy them,” said one clever English capitalist woman to Mr. So- cial-Imperialist Hyndman, who told in his memoirs how this madam—more ‘sagacious than all the leaders of the Bern “inter- national’ put together—evaluated the “labors” of the socialist-in- tellectuals in the training of the socialist leaders from the ranks of the workers. During the war, when the Vanderveldes, the Brantings and all this band of traitors, arranged “international” conferences, the French bourgeois newspapers very venomously and very truthfull ered: “These Vanderveldes suffer from a kind of St. iafeatiaiee, As men suffering with this sickness are unablé to ‘ ‘Say two phrases without a strange contraction of the muscles of the face, so the Vanderveldes are unable to make a political move without repeating like a parrot the words: Internationalism, so- cialism, international solidarity of the workers, revolution of the proletariat, etc. Let them repeat no matter what sacramental formulae, if only they help to lead the workers by the noses and render service to us, the capitalists, in conducting the imperialist war and the enslavement of the workers.” The English and the French bourgeois are at times very clever and splendidly appreciate the lackeys’ role of the Bern “international.” ‘realized in the small villages, but in- stead it required the expropriation of the bloodsuckers who have monopol- ized the means of production, “and this requires fight, fight and fight and not meaningless, narrowminded bourgeois morals.” Consumers Cooperation, . The consumers coopreative move- ment Lenin regarded of great im- portance for the revolutionary move- ‘ment. One has only to recall the Copenhagen congress of the socialist international (1910) to see Lenin's significant that Lenin, the great revo- Tutionist, ‘considered the cooperative : "question so important that he was vqg)ycone ofthe Russian delegates to the fubcommission of the congress which jeonsidered. this question, The coope- rative-movement, at, that time was al- | ready a big movement and thruout a reformist movement, Lenin, however, did not abandon this movement be- ‘cause it was reformist, but on the ' contrary fought bitterly to win it over for revdlutionary purposes. The re- formists understood better than many revolutionists the importance of con- trolling this big mass movement. No wonder that the cooperative question was one in which the fought the Marxian revolutionists - most bitterly. Lenin not only debated with the opportunists in the sessions of the commission, but he also sub- mitted his own thesis. As this thesis very clearly pointed out Lenin’s con- Pa? ~on- aQiat position on this question. It is very | reformists™. ception of cooperation, we give it” here: ’ : Thesis Proposed by Lenin. “The congress declares: “1, That the proletarian consumers’ cooperatives improve the conditions of the working class by reducing the exploitation of all kinds of middle- mén, by exerting an influence in the working conditions of the workers in the distribution of products, and by giving them better conditions for its © own employes. “On the other hand, the congress declares: “1. That. the betterment achieved thru the help of. the cooperatives is insignificant so long as the means of production are in the hands of that class whose overthrow is essential for the realization of socialism. “2, That the cooperatives are not organs of the immediate struggle against capitalism, and that ‘they’ with other similar organizations of the other classes, may develop the illusion that they (these organiza- tions) are means by which the social question can be solved without a class struggle and overthrow of the bour- geoisie, ; “The congress dethands the work- ers of all coutries: “a. To join as members in the pro- letarian coopreatives, help their dev- elopment and thereby to defend the democratic character of these organ- izations. By George Halonen “b. Thru indefatigable socialist Propaganda in the cooperatives to help the workers better understand the idea of the class struggle and socialism, “c, At the same time to endeavor to bring all the different forms of the labor movement to as complete unity as possible. “The congress also declares, that the producers cooperatives benefit the fight of the working class only when they are integral part of the consu- mers’ cooperatives.” Lenin’s thesis was not ‘adopted. However, the fighting attitude of Lenin and the other revolutionist members in the subcommission com- pelled the reformists to present to the congress a resolution in which the main principles about cooperation as advocated by Lenin were. adopted, Lenin ¢onsidered’ the cooperative . question as discussed in the Copen- hagen congress so important ‘that, he wrote in the bolshevist newspaper Social Democrat a . special » article, “The Cooperative Question in the In- ternational Soccialist ‘Congress © at Copenhagen.” In this he points out that in the main the cooperative re- solution adopted contains right inter- pretations ‘of the principles, but that it is not clear enough because it was a compromise resolution. The article concludes with: “The fight against the reformists {s only postponed, and will mevitably be resumed,” — After the Revolution. The revolution changed the social conditiions in Russia. The exploiters were overthrown and workers cap- tured political power. Therefore, the’ purpose of cooperation changed ac- cordingly. Lenin’s last article which was published after his death was about cooperation. In this he em- phasizes the importance of coopera- tion. Now the producers’ cooperatives and credit unions in villages are of great importance. The consumers co- operatives have also different purpos- es than before the revolution. The class struggle has attained its high- est’ outcome, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now is the time to build the new society. In this..work the cooperative organizations of the peas- ants and workers, must be Brangrts nearer to each other, tHe 'h The gist of Lenin’s teachings about « | cooperatives is that before the revolu- | ..} tion the coopreative movement must help the workers to attain state power, and after the revolution the cooperatives must help the workers to build the new sociéty, “Tt appears to me that we pay too little attention to the cooperatives\” said Lenin. This is true even in Ame- rica. The cooperative movement, al- tho at present comparatively weak, ig @ movement which we must not ignore, but on the contrary try to solve in the light of “how can the . cooperative movement best serve the class struggle?” To solve this prob- lem, we must take part in the prac- tical work of the cooperatives, |