The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 2, 1928, Page 8

Saag THE DAILY WORKER ———_._. TN Sa ear Sees Published by the pe TONAL DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING ASS’N, Ine aily, Except Sunday 88 Ficst Street, New York, N. Y. Cable Address: “Daiwork” SUBSCRIPTION RATES | By Mail (in New York only): By Mail (outside of New York): $8.00 per year $4.50 six months $6.00 per year six months $2. 50 three months. $2.00 three months. Phone, Orchard 1680 — ” a and mail out checks to TBE DAILY WORKER 33 First Street, New York, N. Y. ROBERT MINOR .. WM. F. DUNNE Evier-4 ae second-class mail at the post-office at New York, N. ¥. under the act of March 8, 1879. bis E’ 39 ons buried in his boyhood past, Charles Emil Ruth- < Raitor! Assista For r enberg disliked his first name, and therefore was known to a} hundred thousand or more of American workers by the simple designation, “C, E.” Those of us who knew and loved him as our leader—which means for the entire Communist Party—never had an impression of softness about ““C. E.” He was the sharp fighting edge of an instrument of battle. ant for those comrades against whom, for some laxity or error in party work, it became necessary for Ruthenberg as official execu- tive of the Party to bring to bear the party discipline. But the peculiar thing is that we always knew that, no matter what the conditions, the actions of Ruthenberg were purely and simply the actions of the Party. He had no other motives than party mo- tives, certainly in his political life, and those who lived and work- ed by his side these many years find it hard to recall even any phase of his personal life where any motives governed him ex- cept those of the ®evolutionary labor movement. It was this rare quality of “C. E.” which made it possible for him to play many times the function of arbiter in the little and} big frictions which inevitably come to light in the process of for- mation and maturing of the revolutionary party. Not that Ruthenberg was never himself in controversy in the Party. On the contrary, many times he was the most active leader in sharp internal fights beginning with the first days in the formation of the left wing in the socialist party, or in the} period of struggle over the legalization of the Communist Party, or in the inany more recent questions relating to forms and meth- ods of mass work of the more mature Communist party. The whole history of the development of what used to be called revolutionary socialism; and what is now called the Com- munist Movement, is also the ‘history of the life of Charles Emil Ruthenberg. It became impossible for any who knew him to think of him separate and apart from the Communist movement in the political sense and the organizational sense. Nor was it possible to think of the Communist Party as separate from C. E. Ruthenberg. It seemed as tho*there’ were an organic connection getween the man and the thousands who composed the party. « Ruthenberg has often been compared with Debs, and there is some reason in doing so, There was always a deep mutual respect between these two; but to fail to note the differences be- tween them would be to miss a whole historical epoch in the de- velopment of the American labor movement. Debs was the old. Ruthenberg was the new on the revolutionary horizon. If when “=e great day came, when the first Socialist Republic sprang from the social voleano in 1917—if then the grand old Debs could say “from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am a Bolshevik,”—it took a younger man with a clearer revolutionary Marxian understanding to be, and not merely to speak of himself as the Bolshevik. { Debs, with honor to himself, was never identified as a homo- geneous part of the socialist party leadership which betrayed the socialist workers of this country by apparent concessions toward the Communist International, only ‘to lead them back into the Scheidemann international of treason. But Debs symbolized the semi-Marxian culture of a by-gone generation, the vague, confused | ideology mixed with proletarian revolutionary emotions, which | reigned over the prairies of this big, raw, undeveloped country, | zrowing out of the big strikes of the eighties and nineties and also | partly out of the agrarian reform movements of that time. Ruthenberg was the embodiment of a newer phase of prole- tarian development. Of a sharp, ruthless logical mentality, his powerful emotional impulse toward the revolutionary movement | were not wasted in confusion. He was capable of growth, he was | capable of scientific Marxian analysis in the field of theory and practice where Debs was iost. Thus it was that the history of the American proletarian rev- olution must write big the name of Ruthenberg—of our “C. E.” Thus it is that the work that was done by Ruthenberg marks a path upon which we find our feet when we move forward in the big struggles of the American workers, in the big fight of the rine workers against bosses and bureaucrats, against capitalism, for the powerful labor movement which will finally win. When our Comrade Bukharin, representing the Communist | International, placed his ashes in the Wall of the Kremlin, and the je soldiers of the Red Army fired the last farewell salute, the cere-| mony was one of binding the American proletariat to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Miners Must Resist Terror The Lewis-Cappelini policy of betraying the miners into the hands of the operators and emasculating the once powerful United Mine Workers union into a tool of reaction, culminating in the anthracite in wholesale murders, is a part of the same anti-union conspiracy that is manifested in open struggle in the soft coal ’ regions of Western Pennsylvania and Ohio, and that is provoking the miners to fight in Hlinois and other coal regions. The fight of the anthracite miners is a struggle on behalf of every member of the United Mine Workers of America. Unless the other miners of the country and the advanced section of the labor movement generally rally to the defense of the victims of the murder machine in the anthracite, every district in the coun- y will face similar ghastly conditions. This terror must be re- ed by the membership of the union. The demand that Lewis fyst Go must ring throughout every local of miners and become \rystallized organizationally into a formidable force that will sweep these monsters from office and place the union in the hands of the membership. The capitalist press reports that throughout the region on the day following the latest outbreak of fascism “one name was on almost every tongue as the man responsible for the murders. He was declared to be a prominent union official.” Yes, the name of one man, the man known to be responsible. That name is RINALDO CAPPELINI! But the name of his chief is JOHN L. LEWIS! Both of them are equally guilty! Both, with all their henchmen, must go! ie an At times this hardness was none too pleas- | UTHENBERG was a Leninist and a Bolshevik. He studied Leninist theory and practice and waged. a successful struggle to convert the ad- vanced sections of the American working class to the Leninist ideology. This leader of American workers studied Leninism, not for academic purposes but for the purpose of ap- plying the theory and practice of the world revolutionary movement, as embodied in Leninism, to the concrete conditions of the class struggle in Améerita’ and for building up a mili- .ant labor movement and a powerful Communist Party in the United States to lead the oppressed masses to victory and freedom. From Left-Wing Socialism to Leninism, UTHENBERG was for many years a leading militant left wing so- cialist in the ranks of the Socialist Party of America. As such, he exerted tremendous influence for maintaining the working class char- acter of the socialist party and for pressing its official leadership to militant struggle against capitalism and the capitalist government. did not stop at so- cialist left wingAsm. For him it was a transition t¢ a complete Avorking class revolutnary ilosgphy and | practice ipism. The late ypperialist war, which he combatted bravely and systematic- ally, the working class revolution in Russia and the formation of the Com- munist International, all contributed towards clarifying his point of view and towards bringing him into the position of one of the outsianding \leaders in the Communist movement jot the world. Founder and Builder of the Workers (Communist) Party. 1 pk ies was one of the first working class revolutionis.s in the United States who had drawn prac- tical implications from the experi- ances of the working class during the to the concrete situa.ions of the class struggle in the United States. Tho first of these practical con- clusions was the idea of breaking definively with the opportunists, re- formists and traitors in the socialist party and of mobilizing the advancea sections of the American working class into a Communist Party. Thus Ruthenberg became one of the chiet founders and most energetic builders of the Communist movement in America. “mplacable Enemy and Courageous Fighter Against Imperialism and Imperialist War. Ree role in mobilizing the masses in open struggle against the late imperialist war was shown by his achievements in lead- ing the mass opposition to the im- perialist war in Cleveland and in his consequent trial and ia tcc 2 Ruthenberg was the ou standing leader of the left wing at the St. iovis convention of the socialist party, which, despite the opposicion of Berger and the other social-pa- triots adopted an anti-war resolution. The St. Louis resolution was a trem- endous step forward in the develop- ment of the American Labor move- ment, but because of the general backwardness of the American work- ing class and the petty bourgeois pacifist illusions which predominated in the movement, the St. Louis reso- lution contains several serious defects from the point of view of a correct Bolshevik stand. Chief among these Ruthenb THE DAILY WORKER. NEW YORK, FRIDAY, defects Is the sail © formulate the slogan of Ciyil War against Im- perialist War. The experiences of Ruthenberg and the militant workers associated 1m the struggle against the imperialist war | contributed greatly towards the revo- lutionizing of the American working class ay the ie ee crystalliza- tion Am of ty ommunist Patty he tion Communist Internatign: The American working class must remember the tradition of resistence tox imperialist war symbolized by Ruthenberg and by the mutiny of the Detroit regiment in Archangel and the strike of the Pacific coast long- MARCH 2, 1928 shoremen against sending munitions to Kolchak, etc. Ruthenberg and the Soviet Union 'N line with his revolutionary out- look and his rapid development to- wards Bolshevism in that period, Ruthenberg was one of the first and staunchest supporters of the Soviet Union. ‘ He realized the revolutionary role of the Union of Socialist Soviet Re- publics, its place (as the bulwark of working class power) to inspire and mobilize the American masses. With this consciousness he worked tire- lessly for the recognition and defense of the Soviet Union. By Fred Ellis The last words of Comradé’C:E. Ruthenberg are particularly appropriate to the present situation in the miners’ union. Two of the progressive leaders have been assassinated by right wing gangsters, but the militants will close the ranks and fight on. Story of First International [TESS ATIONAL PUBLISHERS, $81 Fourth Avenue, New - York, have just published the first author- itative history of the International Workingmen’s Association, the “First International.” For many years English-speaking students of the labor movement have been denied the possibility of studying one of the most important and inter- esting periods in the history of the international labor movement, be- cause nothing was available in the English language that gave any ate count of the first attempt at inter- national organization of labor, that was founded by Karl Marx in 1864, The book just published under the title of “The History of the First International,” was written by G. M. Stekloff, a well-known writer and translator of historical and Marxian, writings. The book has been trans- lated from the third Russian edition by Eden and Cedar Paul. It is one of the most detailed studies, not only of the International Workingmen’s Association during the period of its existence, but contains also a great rise to the First International. The book, which has altogether 463 ¢ pages, contains a great many explan- atary notes, the constitution of the International, as well as the names of the first Central Council. No stu- dent of the international labor move- ment or Marxism should be without this first authoritative and complete study of the First International in the English language. Ruthenberg, the American Labor Movement and the Every-Day strug- gles of the Workers. * AS a Leninist, Ruthenberg fought consistently for revolutionizing of the American labor movement, for developing its mass. organizations (trade unions, etc.) into militant or- ganizations of class struggle. His.whole life is an unbroken chain of hard, strenuous work and struggle in the interests of the working class and the labor movement. As a Bolshevik, Ruthenberg never lost sight of the.chief objective of Communists, in the class struggle, which is to revolutionize the minds and struggles of the masses and to No Quarter to the Injunction! By I. JEROME. F there is still a worker with a particle of faith in the endeavors of the labor bureaucrats to fight in- junctions, the latest manoeuvre of the so-called labor-leaders of this state should serve to sober him. The re- ference, of course, is to the Injunc- tion Regulation Bill drafted by the New York State Federa‘ton of Labor, and known as the Byrne Bill. A great to-do has been made by the labor officials about this “chief preferred labor bill of 1928.” There has been much trumpeting and pomp- osity. There have been advance no- tices, statements, reports. quoted cpinions, eulogies, a ceremonious in- troduction of the measure in the leg- islature, a public hearing before the Industrial. Survey--Commission, and only a few days ago a mass meeting in Cooper Union at which, it must be recorded, Mr. Green and his colleagues did not fare so well due to an over- sight on the part of the arrangement committee in permitting workers to enter the hall. Yet all the Fordesque advertising has not succeeded in blind- ing the American workers to this fact—that the Byrne Bill is a retreat and not an advance. Complete Surrender. The officials of the American Fed- eration of Labor have never been great warriors in the workers’ cause. Nevertheless, in the days before they took the road to surrender, they ad- hered, nominally at least, to the tra- dition of complete opposition to in- junctions. That tradition was formu- lated in a perennial convention reso- lution which came to be drafted into the so-called “Model Bill” for intro- duction by legislative “friends” who would be “rewarded.” Of such a nature was the Hacken- sack bill introduced unsuccessfully in the New York State Assembly by the New York Federation of Labor a year ago, (Defeated on March 22, 1927.) That Bill sought to take com- pletely out of the hands of the courts the right to issue injunctions in in- dustrial disputes. It declared the is- suance of anti-labor injunctions by courts of equity to be unconstitu- tional. It is true this bill was con- demned in advance by the republican majority and Hackenberg knew it and was trying to make capital for him- self. It was however objectively a challenge to the principle of judicial review. Now a new note is sounded by the labor officials. In their cams paign for the open shop and the “American Plan” they cannot very well set themselves in defiance of a time-honored American institutio like the judiciary. And so we find the New York State Federation Bul- letin for December 15, 1927, referring to the new (Byrne) bill in these words: “Legal Adviser Sullivan explain- ed its provisions in an address to the Conference on Monday, Dec. 5. He said the proposed bill is fully constitutional in this state, while the A. F. of L. Model bill transfer- ring from equity courts to law courts the sole judicial authority to issue injunctions in industrial disputes would not be constitutional as evidenced by decisions of our state court of appeals.” Treachery of Officials. Accordingly, in order to be safe within the bounds of the constitution, “our leaders” have fallen upon a most. ingenious plan. They have devised a means by which they. may both eat the cake and have it. They can an- nounce a measure to fight injunctions and in effect not fight them! They ean continue drafting “anti-injunc- tion” bills without La for the abolition of the injunction. It is only a matter for wonder that they have not thought of this before. Still, better late than never. And so—the Byrne bill! This bill by its very title “Injunc- tion Regulation Bill” constitutes a sanction of injunctions. It does not dispute the right of judges to issue injunctions. It merely wishes to amend the present practice cf erant- ing injunctions by providing that a hearing he given before an injunction is issued This is a complete ve .:. cuishment of the anti-injunction posi- tion. Coming as it does at a time when the workers throughout the country are indignant to a point of militancy as a result of the increas- ing number of injunctions, this action of the New York labor chiefs is treachery. Backward as the Ameri- can workers are politically, they aré nevertheless sufficiently conscious of the grave menace in the anti-labor in- junction When they see that during the shopmen’s strike in 1912 over 300 in- | junctions were handed down against the workers, not a single application being denied to the bosses, when they see that during the year 1927 more than 600 injunctions were issued against the workers, when they see that not a single strike, great or small, is called without a wall of injunctions standing in the way of the strikers, when there are injunctions against joining trade unions, against peace- ful picketing. against peaceful as- semblage, against free speech, against announcing the existance of a strike, against cessation of work, against strike rehef, against financing strikes, against picketing by foreign-born workers (as in a federal injunction handed down in Ohio), against peace- ful persuasion of stadke-breakers, . against the singing of songs. (In one case it was “Onward Christian Sol- diers”, sung on church ground by strikers.) In such a state of affairs what would not the workers do, if led by true leaders, to destroy once and for all this powerful weapon in the hands of their enemies? But as in every crucial moment in the life of the American working class, the officials of the A. F. of L. have in this instance again given evi- dence of their loyalty . . to the bosses. Said the President of the New York State Federation of Labor, Mr. Sullivan, in his opening remarks at the meeting in Cooper Union on Sunday, February 5, “We don’t want the people of New York to get the impression that we are asking to stop the issuance of injunctions. All we are asking is to regulate the is- suance of injunctions.” And this note was taken up by all the speak- ers that followed him, from Green to the visiting clerics. The labor. chiefs have begun to realize that the anti- injunction sentiment among the work- ers might develope into revolt against existing conditions and they decided to stifle that revolt, by diverting it into a hope and a’faith in the civili- zation of the judges. No injunctions before a hearing! is the slogan of the labor bureaucrats. As if a hearing of workers and employer in a strike situation could bring the judge to side with labor! As if the workers could ever hope for redress before the bar of capitalist justice! Is it possible that the labor bureaucrats themselves believe it? Only a fool could be persvaded of this. The mis- leaders of labor resort to this Jesuit- ical method because in it they see a chance to turn aside the accumulated resentment of the workers against the injunction. Workers Reply. What shall be the answer of the workers? * At Cooper Union, on February 5 the workers to a man shouted their answer to the panic-stricken bureau- crats on the platform: “Down with all injunetions!” “No faith in the bosses’ parties!” “We want a labor party!” This should be the answer of the workers of America to the ‘raitors at’ the head of the labor movement. No retreat in the face of injunctions! Only the complete out- lawry of the injunction will satisfy the workers. Until then—mass viola- tion of injunciions! Only by conscious labor action, only by driving the bureaucrats out of the office and electing a strong left-wing leader- ship, only by deserting the parties of the bosses and creating a power- ful Labor Party that will represent labor’s interest will the death-blow be dealt to injunctions. \ cs Se EBERT NIN AISNE SE YS EB) CARER ES n Outstanding Leninist build a powerful Communist Party to lead the workers to final victory. Ruthenberg and the Capitalist State UTHENBERG was one of the most persecuted proletarian revolution- 1 V) ists in the United States, as evi- denced by his trials and imprison- ment in Ohio for anti-war activities, in New York for organizing the left wing and the Communist Party, in Michigan for his activities in the Communist movement, etc. As a true Bolshevik, he made no conces- sions to the capitalist state and the capitalist courts. He utilized the trials for effective propaganda against ~ capitalism and for the working class. He utilized his terms of. imprison- ment for equipping himself still bet- ter for struggle and leadership in the yee class movement. | Ruthenberg represents the model of how a proletarian revolutionist must behave and conduct himself be- fore capitalist courts. Ruthenberg and the Labor Party UTHENBERG was one of the most, prominent and consistent le in the struggle for a labor pi the United States, Based upon his Marxist-Leninist theory and his Marxist-Leninist analysis of the conditions of struggle in the United rat reached the co a labor paxty ing class. He fought“for a labor party as a Communist should—that is, realizing all the limitations of a labor party from the point of view of the revo- lutionary struggle for power, but in the full conviction that the Commu- nist Party will utilize the labor party movement for developing politically the american working class and in the process of building up a power- ful Communist Party in America, As a true Leninist, Ruthenberg un- derstood the essential importance of winning the exploited farmers for the struggle against capitalism and imperialism and for the establish- ment of a close glliance between the workers and pogr faxmers by the working and \¥ts Mommunist Party. As a Profetarian Revolutionist N ALL his manifold activities tn the every day struggles of the American working class, Ruthenberg]| never forgot the chief objective of the’ working class movement—-the over- ‘hrow‘of American capitalism and the establishment of a proletarian dic- tatorship. He was therefore a true proletarian internationalist and a loyal and capable leader in the Communist M- ternational. Ask Study of New York state needs a “genuine, adequate, official study of the non- institutional poor” to shed light on the problem of old age pension legis- lation, indicates the American Asso-| ciation for Labor Legislation in an} appeal to the editor. There are half a dozen old age pension bills before the state legislature, all apparently based on the draft of a standard bill prepared at the legislation’s associa- tion’s conference in 1922. But bene- fits and administration details vary widely in the proposed bills, An official commission, working for 2 years with an appropriation of $5,- 000 yearly, has just reported-on aged dependents in institutions. The Amer- ican Association for Old Age Secur+ ity maintains that the group outside institutions is more’ important. ie { q | i ii i} ' deal of material interpreting the con~- i ditions and the period which e | Ni ) in | Old Age Poor |