The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 8, 1927, Page 12

THE LION - As will be remembered, the leader of the Macedon- fan Liberation movement, Todor Panitza, was mur @ered in 1925 by Mencia Karniciu, an agent of the Tsankoff government in Vienna, Tha murderer, Carniciu, was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and soon afterwards released by the Austrian. au- thorities for “reasons of health,” “Did you know this Todor?” # He put his hands on the newspapers which we fwere just reading; we sat in a cafe. “Ho was @ real man! ' “What kind of a man was he then?” " “He was a real man!” tokd you already that I belonged to a fighting @rcup together with Todor Panitza. He wag our feader. Imagine, our whole group had been sent to the district of Drama by the congress in Firmine, That was in 1904. Drama was, perhaps you don’t know it, the dirtiest district of the whole of Mace- Gonia. The tyranny of the Turks, the Turkish propa- @aada, the Greek landowners and tradesmen and a whole net of spies,—all that burdened the poor Peasant population. When they bade us farewell, @he comrades gaid to us, as if to encourage us: “If you return, we will see each other again—but you fwill not return.” “We have stayed there two years, old boy. For a group of fighters like us that was not bad, eh? The feason was that our leader was a man! better than anyone else! He incited the tradesmen and the spies dexterously against each other—by his great tricks. He was certainly not over-sensitive, for instance in the case of Kambureff (in this family there were also innocent people, whom he saved). At Yantshooglu it was otherwise, however. One de- #-anded from him: ‘Subject him!’ But Panitza had other tactics. He discussed with him. He ex- Pilained to him that he had not come to kill the poor Turks, Bulgarians or Greeks; no, be wanted to unite them all in order to fight against the tyr- anny of the Turks, for he was a friend of the op- Pressed peoples of Macedonia. Thus it won Yan- échoogiu for the poor peasants, similarly Orumoo- @lu and Bolgureff, the three Macedonian leaders. “He never killed without necessity, our Todor! Yes, he was a lion and no cannibal. He did not per- mit that the powerful Bey of Karkiakova, Demir® Aga, was killed, despite the fact that the poor shep- berds pleadingly asked him for it. ‘Kill him,’ they Said to Todor. But he held another opinion. He spared him and rather imposed a high fine on him. “One day in a field we met a group of reapers, Turks from Bozdague. You should have seen their faces when suddenly a group of riders, as if they had risen from the earth, were before them. YO cas ead at we have returned to these reapers their bread and their weapons despite the fact that they were Turks He knew © A Story - and that we were frightfully hungry. The next day these reapers met some gendarmes. They took away their weapons and their bread and gave them noth- ing but-a thorough beating. The reapers all came to us, filled up our ranks and were more enthusiastic for the good cause than we ourselves! “He developed plans in his head of which neither you nor I have a proper idea. He said, for instance, to the poor peasants: ‘Hide a part of your harvest, then the tradesmen will not be able to exploit you.’ The peasants followed his advice and ruined many rich robbers, who were now compelled to sell their land to the peasants, “In short, he educated them. Finally, all people sald about us: ‘They are the fighting group which one misrepresents as a group of bandits.’ “He consoled the poor, troubled the tyrants and sold all his property in order to supply us with arms. For 20 years he served the cause of Macedonian revolution. “and how he worked for the independence of Macedonia! Everybody knows it and yet it must be said over and over again: He was the creator of this idea. Unfortunately the committee which was led by Alexandrov, Panitza and Protogerov, later on split. The autonomists, headed by Protogerov, were finally nothing else but instruments of Bul- garian imperialism. “And thus Tchauley was murdered in Milan,: Das- kalo was murdered in Prague, “The revolutionary Alexandrov was murdered on the order of Protogeroy and then the autonomists demanded: ‘Now also Panitza must be killed!’ “But that could very easily be said, but how was it to be done? “Panitza has done more extraordinary things than the had hairs on his head and he knew also how such a thing is done. In Vienna he was safe, for there he was guarded by his friends. He was always attentive, able to cope with any immediate danger, he was elastic, had power over his body—it was ab- surd to think that he might be murdered! OME tee ew Ges By HENRI BARBUSSE “Therefore one had to use a trick, a trick like against a lion who is much stronger than oucselg, But who was cleverer than he? “In the group of more or less obscure persons, who surrounded the ministries and the Bulgarian embassy, who lived from the secret fund.that was taken from the pockets of the tax payers, there was @ young girl by the name of Mencia Carniciu. She was the- daughter of a bankrupt usurer, had lived loosely, was ill and very ugly: thin, pale, with hol low cheek.—she looked almost like a white monkey. She received much money and secured information, Even the confidential name Antonov was told to her, “And she was able to secure admission into the family of Panitza, Soon she won his pity—the most dexterous tactic towards a great man. “One day she bought a theater ticket and said to Panitza: ‘I have received a theater ticket.’ They went to the theater: Panitza, his wife, his friend, who never left him,—and the murderer. They had a box in the Vienna Burgtheater. “Peer Gynt was given. You know it, it is a piece with music, in which a great thunderstorm takes place. For one moment it gets quite dark on the stage and in the whole theater, it lightens and thunders. “You must imagine what happened now in the box. On the one side sat Panitza, beside him his faithful friend, she behind him, When the thunder- storm on the stage began, she took a revolver from her handbag—-she could do that during the thunder- storm without being noticed. With two shots she broke both arms of Panitza’s friend, then she shot at Panitza, and got up and went out. “Wiile Panitza died, the man with the broken arms rose and opened with a powerful kick the door of the box. The murderer had already almost reached the exit of the theater, when she was ar- rested. “You have seen her during the trial, how she sat in the courtroom, niorally and physically disgusting, and the secret agents and policemen acted a hospital scene, She was carried on a stretcher and played the role of a deadly ill person, who had done a deed of liberation in hatred against a gang of murderers, money and whose soul was just as rotten as her —she, who had carried out Tsankoff’s will only for body.” He kept silent and showed me a newspaper re- port: “In Vienna Mencia Carnociu was sentenced te eight years’ imprisonment; however, on account of her health she was released. She was received en- thusiastically in Bulgaria, participated in many meetings and was celebrated as a Bulgarian Char- lotte Corday.” THUS is world history and THUS it is written. What and How to Study Trade Unionism By SOLON DE LEON. “If I were deported as a Red and could take with Me only one book on American trade unions, I would want that book to be “Trade Unionism in the United States,” by Robert F. Hoxie. No other single vol- ume gives so clear a picture of the motives, struc- ture. control, and history of organized labor. Let us then set out with this excellent guide to Study trade unionism. But, Hoxie asks at once, have We only one kind of unionism? Do ail unions want the same thing? Olearly not. An analysis of what particular unions want is therefore necessary be- fore we can decide whether unionism is good or bad for the workers. Beginning with the easy question of structure, Hoxie shows that unions are not even all built alike, Some are—well, what is a local union? A national traft union? A city central body? A state federa- tion? A national or internationa] federation? An industrial union? A general labor union? Next comes a0 analysis of union laws, which are mcre important than the way a union is constructed, Hoxie was the first to apply psychologica] principles to the study of trade unions. He divided labor or- ganizations into four “functional” types—business unions, friendly or uplift unions, revolutionary un- fons, and predatory or hold-up unions. Why did each of these spring up? What are examples of each? Which are the most common? Which have advanced the cause of labor, and which have not? Are vio- Jence and disregard of the existing law ever justified in union activity? — )} The next section takes up the historical causes which led to the growth of different union structures end different kinds of activity. The first unions, formed shortly after the American revolution, were naturally local in area and craft in form. Why? Why did untonism develop just then and not earlier? Ho wmany workers realize that the legal right to organize was won only after forty years of bitter struggle? During that time the employers repeat- edly attacked the unions in court, and had them de- clared illegal conspiracies, The story of this strug- gle is well told by Hoxie, jtoxie advances the idea that union forms tend wo follow the structure of industry and of capitalist orgculzation, Does this idea seem reasonable? On ths basis, how can you explain the gradual joining of craft unions into city central bodies, state fed- erations, national federations, and finally a federa- tion of national craft unions? The spurt in union organization which took place during the Civil War led to the formation of the Knights of Labor. What sort of body was the Knights? How did it come that the American Federation of Labor, a much later body, was able to overthrow the Knights and assume leadership of the American union movement? Grow- ing dissatisfaction with the Federation led to the organization of the I. W. W. Why did the I, W. W. fail? ‘ Though the unions aim at more democracy in industry, Hoxie points out that in their own affairs they are likely to be controlled by officers and lead- ers. What influences cause leaders to lose touch and sympathy with their own rank and file? Can you tell from your own experience why the rank and file do not exercise more control? No doubt the membership should secure more voice in union af- fairs—but how try to get it? Without strong left- wing criticism and organization a union is likely to drift into more and more conservative policies. How can left-wing activity be strengthened and improved? The part dealing with employers’ organizations is especially keen and helpful. Most employers are “open shoppers.” They seize every opportunity to smash the workers’ organizations. Yet Hoxie shows that they have their own organizations and find them very useful in the class struggle.. Hoxie viv- idly describes the methods used by “American plan” employers’ associations in fighting unionism. It is well to learn these methods and be prepared to defeat them. On the other hand, some employers prefer to make business deals with business unions, Can you see any advantage to the bosses in this? Another brilliant section of the book takes up the question of labor and the law. The capitalist state, always the guardian of the interests of the capitalist class, has written enormous volumes of legislation controlling the activities of workers, individually and in their unions. ‘Do these laws recognize that society is in constant change, or do they assume that what wag right or wrong in\the past must always be right or wrong? Do they emphasize the individ- ualistic or the social point of view? Do they place property rights above personal and socia] rights, or just the opposite? Are the laws adjustable to new conditions, or are they rigid and inflexible? Are they clear, or contradictory and confusing? Answer these questions from your own knowledge, and then see what Hoxie says about them. When unionists and employers agree on wages, hours, and conditions of labor, the procedure is called “collective bargaining.” Hoxie clearly shows why the employers’ bargaining power is greater than that of the workers. How can the workers increase their bargaining power? Should unions favor or oppose standardization of conditions? How far is it wise for unions to make concessions to employers for the sake of making agreements? Business un- ions frequently enter into deals with monopolistic employers, to force higher prices for their product. Is this wise union tactics? Then there is the whole question of state intervention in labor disputes. Is government mediation or conciliation ever of bene- fit to the workers? Would you agree to voluntary arbitration of a dispute in which you were interested, if you were bound beforehand to accept the arbi- trator’s decision? How do you feel about the grow- ing demand of employers to make arbitration com- pulsory? Under union programs Hoxie compares a number of different union demands. He shows that these demands are drawn up on immediate considerations, as practical means of improving the conditions of workers in that particular union. He raises a num- ber of interesting tactical questions, Should unions seek to increase output in the hope of getting more wages? Are the unions justified in limiting output? Should unions resist or encourage the introduction of new machinery? See whether you agree with Hoxie’s answers. Scientific management, under capitalism, has two objects—to squeeze more profits out of the workers, ° and to break up trade unions. Hoxie, who wrote another valuable book on this subject alone, shows how motion study and the stop-watch aid in subdi- viding processes and destroying the workers’ craft skill, Hence arises the question, can the unions co-operate in time study and scientific management plans without endangering their own existence? On the other hand—-and this is a point which Hoxie fails to raise—could not scientific management be used to great advantage by the toilers themselves under workers’ control of industry? queen > A POE ARIIOALE 105.