The Daily Worker Newspaper, April 24, 1926, Page 14

? << sah oss OR OA PN PASE m6 OB A AR * ~ How English Critics React to Trotzky’s New Book, “Whither England” By R. PALME DUTT. ROTSKY’S “Whither England?” has stung the representatives of the Independent Labor Party and Fabin- ism, who are so mercilessly criticized within it, to endeavor to reply. Re- plies have appeared from such repre- sentatives as the editor of the Daily Herald, Brailsford, Bertrawi Russell, George Lansbury and others. The prominence given to these replies in the official labor press, and the space accorded; indicates the which the book is undoubtedly having in the movement. It is significant that no trade union leader has yet come out in opposition to the arguments of the book. The replies have been con- fined to the I. L. P. intelligentsia, the religious-pacifist group, etc. The La- bor Party leaders have also maintain- ed silence, leaving to these “theoret- ical” champions to maintain their case. These replies are extremely instruc- tive. In a future edition of Trétsky’s book they should be reprinted as an appendix: for they bear out with com- ical exactness (and absolute unconsci- ousness) all the heaviest charges that Trotsky brings against this ideology of “English Socialism.” ‘The horizon of these writers is governed by per- sonal questions and a subjective (“idealist”) outlook. They complain, to begin with, that Trotsky has “at- tacked” them, that he is “offensive,” that he is “superior,” that he has no nice parliamentary manners and that he actually seems to have nothing but contempt for their beautiful theories. In the next place, they complain that Trotsky is a “Russian” and not an Englishman, and therefore cannot “understand Englishmen” or the su- periority of English institutions.(they do not attempt to show their superior understanding of England by meeting Trotsky on any of the historic or ob- jective. ground he covers). Finally they. Complain that the outlook sug- gested is “gloomy,” and that they pre- fer to “hope” and “trust” and “be- lieve” that all will be for the best, and nothing unpleasant will need to be faced. The Daily Herald devotes a prin- cipal editorial to Trotsky’s book, un- der the heading “Two Years of Life in Conflict.”". The editor seizes on a quotation (misquoted, and actually re- ferring to Cromwell) that “the recog- nition by a great historic mission con- fers the right to annihilate all ob- stacles in the way.” This he erects into Trotsky’s first principle. Hethen announces that Mussolini and British imperialism also hold this view. On this basis he proudly affirms the “breakdown” of Trotsky’s reasoning. He prefers “the hope of persuading people that force is futile and despo- tism always detestable, that persuas- ion and generosity are for more pow- erful influences,” etc. Needless to say, the Daily Herald advocates a very different policy when it comes to maintaining British imperialism against the subject peoples. The “Clyde Group” of Scottish I. L. P. members of parliament is rep- resented by Johnston in the Forward. This reply takes up a strongly na- tional point of view against Trotsky’s intrustion into British politics: “As Trotsky Sees Us” is the heading: and the writer complains that ‘Tretsky should, dare to make assertions about “a countfty other than his own, .of which’at the best he must only have a second-hand knowledge.” Johnston’s example of Trostky’s supposed ignor- ance is, /however, unfortunate: he challenges the statement that ‘“Mac- Donald operated in the realm of di- plomacy with the aid of false docu- ments” and endeavors in reply to gloss over MacDonald’s direct share in ‘the issue of the Zinoviev forgery with the childish plea that “MacDon- ald “did not operate the Zinoviev let- ter; it was operated against him.” The 1. L. P. ideologists are repre- sented by Brailsford, the editor of the New Leader, and Bertrand Rus- sell. influence | | Brailsford feito an introduc tion to the English edition. He con- siders that the issue of the book proves the existence of liberty in Eng- land: “the battle for freedom is not yet lost,” altho the Communist trial was “a nightmare” which raised grave doubts in Brailsford’s mind whether Trotsky might not be right. However, he rallies with the rest to the sanctity gf British institutions. Revolutionary ideas have no relation to England; they are purely “Russian.” The book 8 “a revelation of the Russian mind.” It will not convert many to the Rus- sian standpoint.” A Russian” cannot understand “our older civilization.” “The respect for the majority shas been inculcated in generations of Englishmen, What can a_ Russian know of that?” Trotsky does not un- derstand the “free” and “democratic” character of religion in England. And so ‘forth. This from the principal theoretical exponent of the I. L. P, in England, who is capable in his writ- ings of dabbling with “Marxism” and even calling himself a “Marxist.” Russell begins with admissions of almost all the points the remainder dispute. “On the politics of the Brit- ish Labor Movement Trotsky is re- markably well informed.” Russell “agrees” with Trotsky on the question of the monarchy, on religion, on the imperialism of the Labor Party, on the lack of a coherent theoretical outlook, on the intellectual and social subservience of the leaders to the bourgeoisie. Nor does he even dis- pute the inevitability of civil war to over come the bourgeoisie. But he discovers a “practical” reason to avoid, as a British citizen, any revolu- tionary conclusion to these revolu- tionary principles to which, as a phil- osopher, he gives his assent. Nothing can be done — because Britain is dependent on America. “It is impossible. for_us to. advance at, a pace whith America! witPnot-tolerate.’ Enlarging and developing this liberat- ing conception, he discovers that here is the true explanation of the “Pacifism” of the British Labor Move- ment. Unfortunately for the truth of this explanation, the “Pacifism” exist- ed in the British labor movement be- fore there was any question of a “Great War” or dependence on Amer- ica. This does not present Russel from coming to the conclusion (identical with the opinion of Mr. Baldwin) that Trotsky advocates revolution in Brit- ain for “patriotic” reasons, because it would be “advantageous to Rus- sia.” “The fagt is” declares Ber- trand Russell “that Trotsky hates Britain and British imperialism, not without good reason, and therefore is not to be trusted when he gives ad- vice,” Finally, Lansbury has issued a reply which is a pitiful self-picture. He ad- mits that the book is “theoretically sound;” but he feels personally at- tacked and wishes to answer back. Impelled to answer, not only on be- half of himself and his colleagues, but of the whole outraged British na- tion, he. sings the glory of the British national mission with simple fervor: “Britain is the one country in the world where the opportunity of work- ers’ control of every department of life is more possible of achievement than anywhere else, “Our working class is learning the great art of administration—some- thing which the Russian workers are only beginning to learn.” (sic), “The Britsh people have the finest opportunity ever given to a nation to lead the world. I still believe we shall do it.” And so forth, But what of the struggle for power, which the British workers have- still to win, and° which might seem to make some difference in the relative position of the British and Russian workers? Lansbury does hot ‘entirely ignore this, But here he discovers what he proclaimssas a “Bolshevik” theory—that there can be no socialism without a world revolu- The Strangler = Igy, A. L. Pollack, worker-cartoonist, pictures the Capitalist-Imperialist Gov- ernment in its “attitude” to the workers and farmers. tion; therefore the task of socialists in every country is—to wait for the world revoultion! Finally, on the question of force, Lansbury <is;ready ‘to maintain (a) that force séttles nothing; (b) that “when the workers in Britain are suf- ficiently united and class conscious to want the revolution, there is nobody here strong enuf to deny them.” Af- ter these clear conclusions on the problems of the working class in Britain, Lansbury turns to the defense of religion. “What earthly reason is there for Trotsky to set himself up as a kind of pope over people’s thoughts and actions in connection with religion? It is a purely personal matter, and something which neither he nor any- one else has the right to interfere with.” These quotations all reveal the ex- pression of an old and decaying stra- tum which is passing away. They ‘will never understand the thot or ac- tion of the revolution; and, confronted with sugh a book as Trotsky’s,-they will only feel personally hurt at his contempt for all their illusions and evasions, right in saying that Trotsky’s book will convert nobody—of themselves. But among the youngest British work- ers, who have been bred up in the conditions of the war and whose eyes and ears are eager to take in the facts, among the labor students, among the younger trade ~ unionists who are winning their spurs in such movements as the minority move- ment, Trotsky’s book will be eagerly read, and every page will give stimu- lus, will give greater strength and confidence, and liberation from the enslavement to the ideas of the old decaying stratum which still holds the leadership and whose ideas are only the echo of those of the bour- geoisie. This is the greatest service for which the British working class movement can be grateful for Trot- sky’s book, Holy Week ERE are a few of the headlines taken from the daily newspapers for six consecutive days. The powers that be have the audacity to persecute Anthony Bimba, a man who is hon- est enough to make a statement of his own convictions, and say “Man made God, not God man.” MONDAY: “Ohioan Stabbed to Death,” ‘“Eleven-Year-Old Cleveland Burglar Kills Self,” “Worker Fatally Hurt in Fall from Top of Boiler.” TUESDAY: “Alleged Blackhand Leader Shot to Death at Canton,” “Man’s Body Foung Dangling from Rope,” “Ohioan Confesses He Hired Man to Murder Bighty- Year-Old Woman,” “Threatened With LHighty- Year Jail Term,” “Two ‘Night Club’ Bandits Reveal Names of ‘Fences.’ ” WEDNESDAY: “Youth Kills Girl and Self Inside of Taxi, “Nine: Work- ers Killed, Six Fatally Injured, in Am- munition Blast,” “Buffalo Man Leaps in Niagara River as Body Is Found.” THURSDAY: “World War Vet Shoots His Father; May Go to Asy- lum,” “One Killed, Another Wounded, in Duel Over Woman's Love,” “Pris- 7 oner Cuts Throat and Wrists,” “High School Boy Missing, May Be Victim of Foul Play.” : FRIDAY: “Bent On Suicide, Held in Hospital,” “Lima Woman Is Given One to Twenty Years in Shooting,” “Hint Rum War as Man Is Shot,” “Held as Slayer, Is Uncoricerned,” “Condemned -Bandit’s Fate Sealed By Two Superior Court Judges.” SATURDAY: “Slayers Given Life Sentence; Three Men Confess to Mur- der of Aged Farm Couple,” “Unwed Mother, Seventeen, Held in Strang- ling of Her Babe, Faints in Morgue Chapel;” “Easter Trails of © Life Abundant;” Easter Day to Bring Many Accessions to Chirches;”-“Spe- cial Musical Programs By Choirs and Sermons By Pastors Will Feature Easter Services in City’s Churches.” ND this is the result of our so- called civilized christian country. “And God gave His only begotten son to save the world.” I wonder what would have happened if Christ had lived to save the world? OH. HELL! . Jimmy Clifford. In that “sense they are: a BSI ATTEN ITE 2 THAT TRE RAT OE NON PTE IN TANIES ELIE IAN fs 03 . sr