The Daily Worker Newspaper, September 26, 1926, Page 4

ree orage “ - - a eH < THE DAILY i ha as lt THE DAILY WORKER Published by the DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO, | 4128 W. Washington Bivd., Chicago, Ill, it htt agate deaiatte die I s ~~ By mall (in Chicago onty): 98.00 per year $3.50 three months SUBSCRIPTION RATES $4.50 six months s ' Address all mail and make out checks to $6.00 per year Phone Monroe 4713 By mall (outside of Chicago): $3,560 six months $2.00 three months THE DAILY WORKER, 1113 W. Wastffigton Bivd., Chloago, Iilinole J. LOUIS ENGDAHL WILLIAM F, DU MORITZ J, LOEB.. | Eater saan hatontartt —— Hntered as second-class mail September 21, 1923, at the post-office at Chi | \. NE nrc eosesernseneeee OCI tOPS Business Manager cago, Ill., under the act of March 3, 1879, <a 290 Advertising rates on application. An Insurance Magnate on Unionism The International Labor News Service favors us with a dis-| purporting to be the gist of a speech | delivered in that city by Maley Fiske, president of the powerful | patch date-lined Montreal, Metropolitan Life Insurance company. Fiske was addressing the officers of the company stationed in| Canada. The sto: present—those does not tell us whether there were any agents sllows who hike up-stairs and down, ring doorbellis in the morning and far into the night, collect nickels, dimes and quarters and urging the population, as a sacred duty to take at least a little policy, just enough to bury them. Those poor fellows are poorly paid. They are entirely at the mercy of the superintendents. They As a matter of fact, the A. F. of L. refused to grant have no union. insurance agents a charter on the ground that they were not en-|**. gaged in productive work. The president of this billion dollar concern did not always be- lieve in unionism. During the war there was considerable agitation for unionism among the agents in Massachusetts. Meetings were held and A. F. of L. organizers were appealed to for-aid. Haley Fiske sent his son to Boston to discourage the agents from organ- izing and because of company terrorism and A. F. of L. sabotage the attempt was not a success. Haley Fiske discharged every in- surance agent that was active in organization work. Haley Fiske talks of “ruling classes” in England and even uses the term “master class.” Of course, the Metropolitan is a “big happy family” and the company is a “mother” to the agents. The kind of a mother that would eat her children for breakfast. If the 15,000 agents of the Metropolitan Insurance company ecified to organize into a union, Haley Fiske would have a different story. Our’masters are very considerate as long as we remain meek and humble. Women Workers and the British The response of British working women to the recruiting cam-| paign.of the British Communist Party, a campaign which has brought | in more than 5,000 new members, is one of the most encouraging Communist Party phases of the struggle which entered a new period with the general strike. ¥rom typical reports of recruiting meetings in the industrial diniricts published by The Workers Weekly, official organ of the British Communist Party, we learn that in some sections, Doncaster for instance, 40 out of 60 new members are women. These women are not following their husbands and fathers into the party, but are taking the lead in the recruiting meetings in ex- Posing the fatal weaknesses and cowardice of the reformist trade tnion leaders and showing the men the way. In Great Britain this development has the greatest significance. The struggie of the women for the franchise has been won only lately and is still surrounded with many restrictions. There is no tradi- tion of women in politics in Great Britain; on the contrary, the tradi- tional attitude is that of female subservience to the male. A report of the conference of the British Trade Union Congress by Dorothy Gary, sent ont by the Federated Press, shows that the trade union movement as a whole has not yet realized the im-| portance of organizing women workers and encouraging initiative | ‘by them. The most militant section of British women workers have realized apparently, as a result of the great struggles taking place in England, that the Commnnist Party, as in all other spheres of the class conflict, is in the lead with its program for mass participa ‘tion of women side by side and on an equal basis ‘with men in the battle of the working class. In America our party must also redouble its efforts to enlist | the women of the working class in the proletarian advance guard. | The Ball Is Over As a French paper views the end of the Franco-American financial _tango—Caillaux: turns out the light. Aalsrcte f ‘T has never been our custom ted torture dying enemies or to taunt |them with thelr slight hope of sal- | vation as they lie on their death bed. But the words of dying men some- times are cherished as revelations by the unwary and, in the case of. the |New Leader, it {s our duty to call at- tention again to the tortuous methods by which it seeks to explain its part in one of the most monstrous fabri- cations ever folsted upon American workers, !. @., the fake repudiation of the world revolutionary struggle by Stalin, secretary of the Communist | Party of the Soviet Union, conoocted |by the Hearst syndicate. |THE DAILY WORKER received a cabfegram from the department for Agitation and Propaganda of the tommunist International, signed by |John Pepper, ‘branding the Hearst |report of Stalin’s speech as a lie made wp of the whole cloth. The DAILY WORKER published the cable and ©, H, Ruthenberg, secretary of the Workers (Communist) Party, sent a copy to the New Leader with the request that it, claiming as it does to be a revolutionary working class pa- per, publish this important ftem of world interest to working class read- ‘AMDS ONBAL, editor of the New Leader, replied in a letter which we were proud and glad to publish as ft gave public confirmation to everything The DAILY WORKDR hes ever said about the warped mental- ity of this socialist party leader. But the matter did not end there. The publication of the Oneal letter stirred By N. BUCHARIN. (Continued from previous issue) A we ook at the matter with the eyes of Comrade Preobrashensky and a number-of other comrades who |do not notice the difference between private capitalist economics and peas- |antry economics, then it is only nat- ural that anxiety as to the Hmits to be observed appears to be entirely | superfluous, since we deprive the pri-| vate capitalist of everything which we | possibly can and only permit his con- | |tinued existence as a possible milch- | cow for the future. But we cannot | adopt the same attitude towards the | peasantry as to the private capital: | ists. We cannot find a common formnia applicable alike to the mid- dle peasant, the rich farmer, and based poor of the villages, as Comrade Preo- | i brashensky would like to do. Thfs is not the right way to put the question. | Theoretical standpoints such as this| lead us to different conclusions, prac- tical politics as in other things, The opposition proposes: Seil as dearly as possible. In selling goods at higher prices to the peasant, you are |taking more from him. “Take more!” —this is the whole wisdom of the op- position, The formulation laid down by one of the comrades of the opposi- tion, Comrade Ossovsky, in an article which ‘we published as discussion ar- ticles in the “Bolshevik,” consists of the statement that we are now taking }less from the peasantry than the czar did. We showld take more, and all evils will vanish from among us. But | we must not judge like this, not mere- ly because it would be inconsistent with our policy with respect to the peasants, but because it is incorrect from the standpoint of economic | adaptedness to purpose, it is a naive Mlusion, a self-deception, It is ridicu- lous togsuppose that our industry could develop with maximum rapidity under such circumstances, ET us take a rough example. This year we could take ten times as much from the peasants as we are ac- tually doing, and invest this in indus- try. But what would happen next year? Next year our agriculture would be worth nothing, we should have no raw materials, no cotton, no export grain, etc, At the same time industry receives an enormous influx of capital, everything which we can possibly squeeze out of the peasants. It would be nonsense to believe that this would secure the more rapid) speed possible in the development of industry; obviously the first result would be a narrowing down of our markets, an absence of buyers. HAVE chosen a rough example in- tentionally, but it serves to show that the maximum speed of develop- ment of our industry is by no means guaranteed by the maximum sum ex- doubt on the authenticity of the de- jup a storm in thecranks of the so- clalist party and the New Leader edi- tor has been forced to repudiate the refusal to correct its Stalin story in its issue for September 18. UT the New Leader sins again end in the worst possible way. Tt tries to confuse its readers and in so doing is forced to display an ig- norance of world affairs so abysmal that one is tempted to express pity rather than the condemnation which the maneuver merits. For instance: The New Leader, while it offers to print a denial of the Stalin speech if made by Stalin himgelf, tries to cast nial printed by Thé DAILY WORK- DR in its issue for September 10. ‘H cabled denigl was signed by John Pepper and in connection with its twisting “attack the New Leader asks the following questions and urges its readers to ask them of The DAILY WORKER. The questions are: { 1. Who Is John Popper? 2 What authority does he have to epeak for Stalin? ‘ 8. Why does not Stalin speak for himself? are glad to answer these ques- tions in advance of any individual inquiries from readers of the New Leader, doubly glad to do so as the answers expose both the ignorance and the duplicity of the New Leader. ly John Pepper is the pen name of ‘© Joseph Pogany, one of the lead- ers of the Hungarian revolution and Minister of War in the Hungarian ed with the aid of Herbert Hoover and Roumanian troops. Imprisoned after the fall of the Soviet govern- ment and sentenced to death, he was exchanged with Bela Kun and others for Hungatian prisoners held by the Soviet government of Russia. After being in America for two years he returned to Soviet Russia and is now, as already stated, the head of the department for Agitation and Propaganda of the Communist In- ternational. In 1924, “Current History” publish- ed a long article on the Hungarian revolution with a sketch of Pogany’s activities and a picture of him taken in his Red army uniform. The editor of the New Leader either knows these facts and pretends ignorance, or if he does not, is too ignorant to edit even a socialist paper, The authority which Pepper has * to speak for Stalin is that vested im the head of a department of the Communist International carrying out the instructions of its executive com- mittee. The false description of Sta-| lin’s statements published by the Hearst press and given world-wide circulation and which the New rege \er published as the gospel, evincing a | childish confidence in the veracity of | William Randolph, was of sufficient | igportance for the Communist Inter- national to take upon itself the task of denying that Stalin, secretary of the leading party of the Communist International, had made any such statements. The task naturally was allotted to the Agitation and Propaganda depart- Soviet government which was crush- ment. The C. P. S. U. and the Opposition Block the Soviet Union is neither To give a clear understandi lems of the Russian Revoluti about the retreat of the Russia | We can by no means guarantee our | progress by these means. The policy pursued by the ©. 0. is adapted to the actualization of our indusrial develop- ment. The policy recommended by the opposition would mot only plunge us into a series of political difficulties, but would retard and destroy the | speed of progress of industry. ‘OW to the third question, which I have already discussed in my pos- itive consideration of the situation. Tha comrades of thé opposition ex- aggerate most frightfully the differ- entiation within the peasantry, and thus they constantly tend to fall into the mistake of ignoring the middle peasant; they devote too little atten- tion to the question of the uplift of the middle peasantry,\to the question of the co-operatives, ete.. In connec- tion with this aspect of the peasant question they have ftrther failed to grasp the problem of the transforma- ics of the peasantry, the problem of the guidance of the peasants into other systems of work and other paths of development, their guidance into so- clalist methods thru the agency of the co-operatives, and thru the growing in- fluence of the organs of the proletar- ian dictatorship on the economics of the middle peasantry, This question plays an extremely important part in our discussion. It is expressed in various combinations, forms the basis of various differences, and remains one of those fundamental bones of contention between the great major- ity of the C, C. and the leaders of the opposition, The Soctal Character of the Soviet State, ET us now turn to the third prob- lem, the problem of the power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the policy of the profetarian dictator- ship within our country. You may perhaps ask: Has th{s question then become a matter of contention in our party? And yet it is true; the op- position has made even this question a matter of contention, Even in this question it has begun to express its doubts in a series of attacks and as- sertions, At first it was only the char- acter of our socialist industry which was made the subject of doubt, then tracted from the peasantry, The mat- ter is not so elmple as all that. If we take less today, we thereby pro- mote accumulation in agriculture, and insure for ourselves a greater demand tomorrow for the products of our in- dustry, If we seoure higher gains for agriculture, this will enable us to take more next year than we could last. We thus secure for ourselves a still greater increase of revenue for the following year, and this revenue we can employ in our industry. This pol- ley naturally involves a somewhat slower rate of speed this year, but will be. compensated later by a rapid rise in the curve of our development, But Sf we adop? the policy of the op- | position, we fly to a high summit of | capital investment during the first car, only to fall the more inevitably, ad probably with a very abrupt drop, came the doubt as to the correctness of our tactics in the’ peasantry ques- tion, and now the character, the class character, of our Soviet power in our country 1s being questioned. This is another step in the development of the oppositional idea, another step away from the true Leninist standpoint, OMRADE TROTSKY, in one of his speeches at the plenum of the C. ‘C., advanced the thesis of the “ex- tremely non-proletarian character” of the soviet power existing in our coun- try. When the peasant question came under discussion, in connection with the results of the elections, the op- position stated that we are threatened by a deviation in the direction of the rich peasantry, and demanded decis- ive intervention on the part of the party, in order to vent any fur ther shifting in @ state already far —of a retreat of the revolution. clear indication of its victorious onward march. tion to be undergone in the econom-| THE present controversy within the Communist Party of «& sign—nor will it be the cause Quite the contrary. It is ng as well of the present prob- on as also of the controversy over the solution of these problems, we are publishing here- with a report.made by Comrade Bucharin at the function- aries’ meetihg of the Leningrad organization of the Commu- nist Party. The report speaks for itself and needs no further elucidation. It is clear and convincing and answers the lies nm Revolution. ee from proletarian. ‘T must be observed that the iden | that our state is not a workers’ state, that it is no longer the state of proletarian dictatorship, cles. It might be thought that this sentence simply escaped from Com- rade Trotsky in the heat of discussion, | This 1s possible; but in this ‘case it would have been his duty to withdraw the assertion afterwards. This the C. C,, thing entirely foreign to us. REPEAT that it is possible for Comrade Trotsky to have made this assertion in the heat of the discus- sion. But this sentence does not stand alone, An article will appear in the next number of the “Bolshevik,” by Comrade Ossovsky of the oppo- sition. I have already made mention of another article of his in the “Bol- shevik,” in which he maintained that we should not by any means take less from the peasants than czarism and the landowners took. Comrades, you must accord more attegtion to this question, for you will well be able to grasp that the question of the charac- ter of our state power is to us the central question. Have we a prole- tarian dictatorship or have we not? All other questions decidedly depend on this one, for if we have no prole- tarlan dictatorship, {this proletarian dictatorship must be actualized.’ And then we have to clear out of the way every obstacle hampering the realiza- tion of this proletarian dictatorship. COMRADE OSSOVSKY writes: “It would be well for us at the Present moment to recollect the words spoken by Comrade Lenin at the session of the Communist frao- tion of the VIII. Soviet Congress. He said that our ¢ is not a work- ers’ but a workers’ and peas- ants’ . It Is only now, six years later, that It becomes com- prehensible why Comrade Bukharin is by no means able to draw the con- clusions rising from the fact that our state Is no workers’ state, but a workers’ and peasants’ state. The Lenin view of the workers’ and peasants’ state assumes a certain in- evitable distance between this state and the state consisting of the pro- letarlat and to a certain extent of the peasantry. The attempts to Ig- nore the inevitable distance between the workers’ and peasants’ state and the proletariat are likely to be dis- astrous to the proletarian revolu- tion,” BREE Bet React Binal Beat Bi Bn i, Ace tl RE a I (Continued tomorrow.) Japs Increase Fleet on the Yangste River CANTON, China, Sept. 24, — The Japaneto now have a fleet of thirteen warships in the Yangtse river, having recently added two gunboats to the flotilla, BUILD THR D, canadian hla ssa is gaining | continual ground in oppositional cir-, was | the more necessary that I drew atten- | tion, in my speech at the plenum of | to this sentence, as some-| al WITH A buB. “The New Leader’ > Makes a Second Mistake 3: Anybody except the Communist- * baiting editor of the New Leader will admit at once that a statement by the Communist International has much more authority than one made by an individual and this is the rea- son why the denial was made by the ©. I. instead of by Stalin himself. But the last thing the editor of the New Leader desires is @ correct an- swer to his questions. What he wants is to create more confusion in the minds of his readers and thus make more difficult a clear appreciation by them of the deception he 1s guilty of. ‘VEN the cable of inquiry to Stalin which ‘the New Leader has sent and which tt publishes in a box in connection ‘with the article to which we refer, is so worded as to confuse the issue. Tt reads: Stalin, Moscow: deny authentlelty of severe critl- olsm. of Zinoviev attributed to you In Amerloan press reports of the proceedings of the Russian Com- munist Party bentral committee. “The New Leader.” is well-known to the editor of the Now Leader that In the discussions which have been taking place in the Russian Communist Party, Stalin has criticized Zinoviev severely. But this is not the question at issue. The ques- tion is: Was the report of Stalin’s speech carried by the Hearst press and re- printed by the New Leader, true or false, and also; Was the repudiation of the state- ments ascribed to Stalin, in a cable signed by John Pepper and pub- lished in The DAILY WORKER, an | Please affirm or | By Wm. F. Danne authentic document? F the editor of the New Leader was striving to get the truth he would have cabled asking first: 25 Were the specific statements in question true or false and, second: Was the repudiation published by The DAILY WORKER an authoriz- ed and official statement? 4m conclusion it must be satd that the editor of the New Leader ts about the only person in the United States possessing even a slight knowledge of the revolutionary movement and pro- fessing sympathy with it who has ac- cepted the Hearst version of Stalin's speech. His hatred of the Commu- nists has led him into a blunder that {the youngest member of the Young | | People’s Socialist League prowia be | ashamed’ to make. § for Editor Oneal’s expressed de- sire to print Stalin’s» own denial | of the Hearst lies, we, feel quite sure |that he will be given he opportunity. Stripped of its vilification of the Communists and jesuitical “reasoning, the article in the New Leader is not only an admission of a mistake but | an admission that the editor deliber- ately used the Hes of the capitalist press to make a case against the lead- er of the Communist Party of Rus- gia, the Communist Party of America and the Communist International, This kind of a united front with the capitalist press has not met with the approval of the readers of the New Leader and it shows that the working class integrity of the social. ist party membership ‘is of a far high- er level than that of its leaders—old and new. oe MAKE IT ne Day's THE DAILY WORKER, 1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, Tl. to keep The DAILY WORKDR. Here's $ Name Serrertietett Street .cersssves For Militant Trade Unionism Pay Today! Clip the blank and attach remittance,