The Daily Worker Newspaper, April 22, 1930, Page 4

Page Four Square, New York City Address and mail all che Published by thé Comprodatly to the Daily Worker, 26-28 Union Square, New York. N. ¥ Publishing Co., In: = ‘ally, except Sunday, at 26-28 Telephone Stu ant 1696-7-8, Cable: “DAIW Union onK.” if Baily i REPLY TO THE COMRADES ON THE COLLECTIVE FARMS JOSEPH STALIN. By m the papers, Comrade eing Rendere n_ the n the ranks c ous € pract moveme lately lective the qu duty to with I rs from col- to reply to my personal receiv ng mé therein. It econor was to these ‘ons by proved to k rs did not give the addre ns touched u lous _poli- Moreover, send their 1 answer. myself cortpelled press, to the let- economist dealing however mpo: as half o: ette of the writers. Th the letters, he addresse In view of to reply ope ters from with those collective First question mistakes in the peasant question Answer: In the incorrect methods of ap- proaching the middle ts. In permitting loyment of force in the sphere of eco- nomic relations with the middle peasa the failure to remember that the economic al+ liance (Smitchka) with the mass of the middle peasants must be built not on the basis of measures‘of compulsion but on the basis of an agreement with the middle peasants, on the basis of alliance with the middle peasants; in the failure to remember that the foundation of the collective economy movement at the pr ent moment is the alliance of the working class and of the village poor with the middle sants against capitalism in general and against the kulaks in particular. So long as the attack on the kulaks was conducted in a united front with the middle peasants, everything went well. When, how- ever, some of our comrades intoxicated by the successes began, unnoticeably, to deviate from the line of attack on the kulaks and to glide over to the line of fight against the mid- dle peasants, when in their eager to achieve a higher percentage of collectivization, they began to employ force against the middle peasants, to deprive them of the right to vote, by “dekulakizing” and expropriating them, the united front with the middle peasants began to be undermined and the kulak obtained the op- portunity, is quite clear, to make fresh at- tempts to recover his position. They forgot that the employment of force, which is nec and expedient in the fight against our class enemy, is impermissible and injurious when applied against the middle peas- ant, who our ally. They forgot that cavalry attacks which are necessary and useful for solving tasks of a character are out of place and in- jurious when it is a question of solving the task of building up collective economy which moreover is organized in alliance with the mid- die peasants. Therein lie the roots of the mistakes in the peasant question. With regard to econom middle peasants Lenin said: “In the first place we must insist on that truth that here we cannot achieve any real and genuine success with methods of compul- sion. Here the economic task is quite differ- ent. : Here it is not a question of a-pinnacle which can be removed while leaving the whole foundation, the whole structure intact. Here there exists no pinnacle such as the capitalists in the town were. To proceed with force here means to spoil the whole thing. . . . There is nothing more stupid than the idea of applyi force in the sphere of economic relations with the middle neasants.” (Lenin, Russian edition Volume XVI, Page 150 to 151.) Lenin states further: “Employment of fore peasantry means relations with the against the middle e tremendous damage. The middle pe a numerous stratum numbering millions. en in Europe, where the middle peasantry nowhere represented such a force, where there exists the gigantically de- veloped technique and culture, city life the railways, where it would have been easiest to think of such a thing—nobody not one of the revolutionary socialists proposed that measures of compulsion should be employed against the middle peasantr (Lenin Russian edition, Volume XVI, Page 150.) This seems clear. ‘ Second question: What are the chief mis- takes in the collective economy movement? Answer: Of such mistakes there are at least three. : (1) The Leninist principle of voluntariness in the establishment of collective farms is vio- Jated. The fundamental directive of the Party and the mode] statutes for agricultural pro- ducers’ cooperatives with regard to the volun- tary principle in building up collective economy are violated. Leninism teaches us that we must lead the peasant onto the path of collective economy by means of voluntary choice, by convincing him of the advantages of socialist collective economy as compared with individual economy. Leninism teaches that we can convince the peasants of the advantages of collective econo- my only by showing him, by proving by means of facts that collective economy is better than individual economy, that it is more advan- tageous than individual economy, that collec- tive economy offers the peasant, the poor peasant and the middle peasant a way of es- cape from poverty and misery. Leninism teaches that every attempt to impose collec- tive economy by force every attempt to pro- mote collective economy by means of compul- sion can only yield negative results, can only turn the peasant against the collective economy movement. ‘And in actual fact so long-as this funda- mental rule was regarded the collective econo- my movement showed success after success. But some of our comrades, intoxicated by the successes began to neglect these rules, began to display inordinate haste, and in the desire to achieve high percentages, began to promote collective farms by means of compulsion. It is not surprising that we did not have to wait Jong to experience the negative results of such a “policy.” The collective farms which had been set up in over haste began to dis- solve as rapidly as they rose. And a portion of the peasantry who only yesterday had enor- mous confidence in the collective farms began to turn away from them. Therein lies the first and chief mistake in e collective economy movement. Speaking of the voluntary principle in build- ing up.collective economy Lenin said: “Our task is now to go over to socialized cultivation of the soil, to go over to common big economy, but there must be no compulsion | of any sort on the part of the Soviet Power. No law of any sort compels thereto, The agri- cultural communes ere formed voluntarily; the transition to the sceialized cultivation of the soil can only be voluntarily. There must not be and there will also not be permitted by the law the least compulsion on the’ part of the s’ government in this re- workers’ spect. If any of you have observed such acts of compulsion you must know that this is an abuse constitutes a violation of the law which we are endeavoring to put right and | will put right with all our forces.” (Lenin, Volume XX, 2nd Part, Russian edition, Page | 20.) And further. “Only when we succeed in showing the peasant by means of facts the advantages of socialized collective cooperative common (ar- tels) cultivation of the soil, only when we suc- ceed in helping the peasants with the aid of cooperative, collective economy, only then will the working class, which holds the state power in its hands, reallv prove to the peasants that it was right, will it really in a tenable and cor- rect way draw the masses of peasants. num- bering millions, over to its side. Therefore, it. is impossible to overestimate the importance of all kinds of undertakings for promoting co- operative collective cultivation of the soil. We have millions of individual farms, scattered about in the most remote villages. ... Only when we prove practically on the basis of ex- periences, which the peasant can understand, that the transition to cooperative, collective cultivation of the land is necessary and pos- sible, will we have the right to y that, in such a vast peasant country as Russia, a ser- ious step has been made on the way to so- i agriculture.” (Lenin, Volume XVI, Russian edition, Page 392.) Finally. yet another passage from the works of Lenin: “In encouraging and spurring on the co- operatives of every kind as well as the agri- cultural communes of the middle peasants, the representatives of the Soviet Power must not permit the least compulsion in the crea- tion of such communes and cooperatives. Only such associations are of value which have been carried out by the peasants on their free initiative and. whose advantages had been proved and tested by them in practice. Immoderate haste in this matter. is harmful, as it can only increase the pre- judice of the middle peasantry towards in- novations. Such representatives of the So- viet Power who permit not only the direct but also the indirect employment of compul- sion for the purpose of uniting the peasants in communes must be sharply called to ac- count and removed from their work in the villages.” (Lenin, Volume XVI. Russian edi- tion, page 519.) That appears clear. It is hardly necessary to say that the Party will carry out with the greatest strictness these instructions of Lenin. They destroyed the Leninist principle of tak- ing into account the varied character of the conditions in the different’ districts of the So- viet Union in regard to the establishment of collective farms. They forgot that there exists in the Soviet Union the most varied districts with different economic structure and level of culture. They forgot that among these districts there are advanced, middle and backward dis- tricts. They forgot that the tempo of the col- lective economy movement and the methods of establishing collective farms cannot be the same for all these districts which are not by any means uniform. “It would be a mistake,” said Lenin, “were the comrades simply to write stereotyped de- crees for all parts of Russia, if the Bolshevik- Communists, the Soviet functionaries in the Ukraine and in the Don were to begin indis- criminately to extend them on a large scale to the other districts.” for, “we are not connected by stereotyped formulaes, we do not decide once and for all that our experiences, the ex- periences of Central Russia can be trans- planted fully and entirely to all the border districts.” (Volume XVI, page 106.) Lenin further said: “To subject Central Rus- sia, the Ukraine and Siberia to certain stereo- typed formula would be -the greatest stupid- ity.” (Volume XVIII, part I. Russian edition, page 143.) Finally Lenin renders it incumbent upon the Communists of the Caucasus “to understand the pecularity of their Republic in contrast to the situation and conditions of the R.F.S.S.R. and the necessity of not copying our tactics but altering them carefully in accordance with the development of the concrete conditions.” (Volume XVIII. Russian edition, part I. p. 200.) That seems to Be clear. Basing itself upon these instructions of Lenin, the Central Com- mittee of our Party in its decision “on the tempo of collectivization” (See Pravda of Jan. 6, 1930) divided the districts of the USSR re- garded from the standpoint of the tempo of collectivization into three groups, of which the North Caucasus, the centre and lower Volga district will be able to end their collectiviza- tion by Spring, 1931, whilst the other corn dis- tricts (the Ukraine, central black earth dis- trict, Siberia, Urals, Kasakstan, etc.) will be able to end thd collectivization by the Spring of 1932, and the remaining districts can ex- tend the period of collectivization up to the end of the Five-Year Plaf, i. e., until 1933. That appears to be clear. And what has actually transpired? We found that some of our comrades, intoxicated by the first successes of the collective economy movement, absolutely forgot the instructions of Lenin and also the decisions of the Central Committee. The Mos- cow district in its feverish desire for inflated figures proceeded jo collectivization by orien- tating its functionaries to completing collec- tivization by the Spring of 1930, although it had no less than three years (end of 1933) at its disposal. The central black earth district, Se Letter of the Communist International to the Finnish Workers in U. S.. A. The struggles for a working-class policy in the co-operative movement, now going on among the Finnish workers, deals with such fundamental problems of the entire working class, and with such an important section of the revolutionary workers’ movement in the United States, that it becomes a document of vital interest to the entire movement. The Daily Worker has just received the author- ized English translation, and hastens to pub- lish it for the benefit of all revolutionary workers, as well as for the Finnish movement, which already has received it in the Finnish press. The letter follows: Dear Comrades: The differentiation now taking place within the Finnish organizations which, up to the present, were marching side by side with the Communist Party of America, can be com- pared with the exits of opportunists from the Communist Parties which have been tak- | ing place now, in the beginning of the third period of post-war capitalism, in various coun- tries, in Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Sweden, etc., and primarily, perhaps, with the Hais coup in Czechoslovakia, the chief difference being that Halonen in the United States feathered his nest in the leadership not of the Red unions, but of the “left” central co-opera- tive. 4 advanced districts, began to orientate them- selves to conclude collectivization in the short- est possible period although they had four years (end of 1933) at their disposal. Needless to say that with such a feverish “tempo” of collectivizing the districts which are less pre- pared for the collective economy movement, in their unbridled desire “to outstrip” the bet- ter prepared districts considered it necessary to exert an intensified administrative pressure and attempted to replace the missing factors necessary for a rapid collective economy move- ment by their own administrative zeal. The results are known. All are aware of that con- fusion which arose in these districts and which had to be put right by the intervention of the Central Committee. Therein lies the second mistake in the col- lective economy movement. The Leninist principle of the impermissibil- ity. of springing over incompleted phases of the movement in regard to the establishment of the collective farms has been violated. The Leninist principle of not racing ahead of the development of the masses, of not subjecting the mass movement to decree, of not getting separated from the masses but moving to- gether with the masses and leading them for- wards by attracting them to our slogans and enabling them to realize by their own experi- ences the correctness of our slogans, was violated. “When the Petrograd proletariat and the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison seized pow- er,” said Lenin, “they were perfectly aware that great difficulties would be encountered, in the village in the work of construction, that here one must proceed more gradually, that it would be the very greatest stupidity to at- tempt here to introduce the common cultiva- tion of the soil by means of decrees and legal declarations, that a very small number of en- lightened peasants would agree to this whilst the enormous majority of the peasants would not set Sefore themselves this task. Therefore we confined ourselves to what was absolutely necessary in the interests of the revolution: which did not wish “to lag behind the others,” began to orientate its functionaries to eom- pleting collectivization by the conclusion of the first half year of 1930 although it had not less than two years; the end of 1931 at its disposal. The Caucasians and Turkestanians in their un- bridled desire “to catch up with and pass” the ) in no circumstances to get ahead of the de- velopment of the masses, but to wait until the movement forwards grew out of the experience of the masses, out of their own struggles.” (Vol. VX. Russian edition, pp. 538, 589). (To be continued* | Central Organ of the Communist Party of the U.S. A. JAILS CAN'T STOP US! For a Workingclass Policy in the Co-operatives wm Worker” Ry mail everywher: Machattan and Bro: ‘ peat SUBSCRIPTION RATES: One year $6 months $3; two months $1; excepting Boroughs of New York City, and foreign, which are: One year $8; six months $4.50 —By Fred Ellis ae How the Present Right Deviation Has Developed. This is now the third differentiation in the process of radicalization in which the Finnish labor movement of America has passed during the last 15 years. The first differentiation took place in 1914 with the exit of the I. W. W. followers from the Finnish Federation of the socialist party, and with the grouping around the “Industrialisti.” Some of the most militant I. W. W. elements returned after a few years again to the socialist party until, under the infiuence of the Russian Revolu- tion—and the revolutionary fighting in Fin- land—during the liquidation of the war, a new differentiation had begun, which, toward the end of 1920, brought about the withdrawal of the entire Finnish organization from the so- cialist party. , At the same time the social- democrats, grouped around the newspaper “Ravaya,” withdrew from the main organiza- tion of the Finnish workers, and, together with the followers still grouped around the “Industrialisti,” remained to represent a purely bourgeois (and at the same time anti- Soviet) labor government among the Finns of America. The main part of the Finnish or- ganization (together with three daily news- papers), on the contrary, went over to the Communist movement, which had just begun. After this the Communist activities of the Finns were conducted with rather lively revo- lutionary enthusiasm, although within too nar- row. boundaries, which was due to the infan- tile sickness of Communism (particularly ex- cessive conspiracy), which at that time hin- dered the whole Communist movement of the United States. But after the underground work was entirely substituted by legal activ- ity, when the Workers’ Party was founded and the Finnish Federation completely affili- ated to it, the life and activity of the Fin- nish organizations grew numb and actually became the same as they’ had been earlier in the socialist party, although outwardly (and in their own behalf) they now stood under the revolutionary Communist banner. This numbness, anaemea and even opportu- nistie state of stagnation, naturally, was inked up with partial stabilization, achieved by post-war capitalism in its second period, which in the United States had manifested itself as comparatively the strongest. The “prosperity” of United States. capitalism in this second period enabled the bourgeoisie, with the help of the American Federation of Labor, to paralize the fighting capacity of the broad masses sufficient to introduce, without any general resistance, the most outrageous system of exploitation of human labor under the name of “rationalization” of industry. When the influx of new working-class immi- grants into the country was stopped, a sec- tion of those who had arrived earlier began to hope for somewhat better work, hoped to obtain the position of at least semi-skilled workers, and, although in reality only a few | individuals, at best, could succeed in that, this circumstance helped to spread among some of the workers petty-bourgeois individu- alist psychology of grabbing everything one could get. This influence began to have its effect on certain (although not large) sections | of the Finnish workers of the United States, since some of them also had obtained slightly better positions, or had engaged in small un- dertakings, or had found some way of secur- ing some permanent additional earnings, and thus raised their status as consumer to a petty-bourgeois level (to the level of a small clerk for example), obtained the possibility of sending their children to bourgeois high schools, or acquired, as a kind of haven against unem- ployment, a farm, which, some of them, by their labor, had succeeded in making pay, etc. Although the social-democratic “Ravaya” FASCIST Hu JVER’S CONCEP: TION OF LEADERSHIP By I. AMTER. (Written in Tombs Prison.) SRBERT HOOVER, in his political acts based upon the present needs of American imperialism, has disclosed that the real foun- dation of his conception is fascism. It is not sufficient to say that he, together with Mor- gan, Schwab, Lamont, Kahn, Barnes, ete., is an admirer of Mussolini or of the fascist regime of Italy “for having restored ‘order’ out of chaos.” Ofie must analyze his actions and concepts and then one readily understands whither capitalist America is going. Writing to the Yale Daily News, Hoover shows his fascist-Nietzshean conceptions open- ly and candidly directed against the mass—the working class. It is the theory of the overlord, the master, the chosen one to lead the “mob,” as he calls it. Collective Workers’ Leadership. “Tye crowd only feels; it has no mind of its own which can plan... It destroys, it con- sumes, it hates but it never builds,” says Hoo- ver. We wonder if fascist Hoover has ever witnessed strikes conducted not by a bureau- eracy like the A. F. of L., but by unions of the Trade Union Unity League, where shop committees, committees of action made up of workers of the shop, plan, work out, select leadevstip from the “crowd that only feels” and “destroys,” conducts the fight with all its ramifications of struggle—picket lines, pub- licity, relief, defense, ete.—conducting it with the knowledge, cooperation and approbation of the “mass that only feels.” We wonder if this mass leadership—this collective leadership does, not completely contradict the fascist Hoover. We wonder if Hoover has ever heard of the Soviet Union where the initiative of the masses is being encouraged, developed, stimulated to such a degree that nowhere in the world—not even in rich imperialist America—is the econo- mic development taking place so rapidly as in the Soviet Union. Increase of production ac- cording to industry from 80 to 70 per cent— whereas in the United States it is only two per cent per annum. The success of the Five-Year Plan—the greatest undertaking in human history—was assured not by the “crowd that only feels, destroys, consumes, hates and dreams,” but by the mass of workers that thinks, plans, con- structs, cooperates, and achieves. The success of the Five-Year Plan gives the lie to fascist Hoover's contention that “man in the mass does not think.” This fascist con- ception of “mob” or “crowd” psychology is an excuse for proceeding to open fascist rule— like Mussolini—on the ground that “the crowd destroys,” the “welfare of the state is greater than that of the crowd,” and the “crowd” must be crushed for the benefit of the “whole.” Capitalist “Democracy.” Fascist Hoover speaks of “democracy.” What does the United States know about democracy? Is there in the U. S., as this fascist claims, a “free ris of ability, character and intelligence?” Who rises? The exploiter—a selected group of vicious, self-seeking, plundering, robbing bri- gands, whose methods bear little or no scru- tiny. These exploiters needing certain types of brains and ability to maintain their control, direct all educational activities into the neces- sary channels, use all means of propaganda— press, church, movie, school—to favor this end, and thus develop the fascist type of ruler and tyrant necessary for continuing their control. (To Be Continued.) The Daily Werker is the Party’s best instrument to make contacts among tke masses of workers, to build a mass Communist Party. group and the syndicalist “Industrialisti” group thrived on this petty-bourgeois swamp, the latter spread its influence also to the Fin- nish organization of the Workers’ (Commu- nist) Party and pushed its members to the right. This was mostly to be seen in two main spheres: in the life of the Finntsh work- ers’ societies and in the co-operatives. 1. The Finnish workers’ societies, which from the very first occupied a central position in general among the small section (at present about 150,000 persons), Firnish immigrants in the United States were, by their character, cultural political clubs for workers, which owned a total of over 150 peoples houses, with their libraries, newspapers, publishing centers, dramatic circles, choruses, orchestras, sport circles, youth and women sections, ete. On the one hand, it must be admitted, all this spoke for the considerable organizational capabilities of the Finnish comrades, but, on the other hand, it was also a proof of their extremely weak capacity for freeing themselves from their national limitations and exclusiveness and for merging with their American environment. The achievement of outer organizational re- sults, such as the enrolment into the workers’ societies of new members, the collection of funds and the distribution of newspapers, de- veloped into the predominatingly chief aim (the same as, in recent years, was the case, in the Swedish Communist Party), so much so, that, along with it, the political and gen- eral ideological content of the organizational activities became a matter totally alien to them, and received from them no serious attention or regular consideration. Of course the cen- tral slogan of these mass organizations was “the class straggle,” but actual participation in working-class conflicts (the Sacco-Vanzetti campaign, election campaigns) became ever more infrequent exceptions in their activities. Perhaps the best side of the activities of these mass organizations has been the collection of funds for such purposes as famine relief in Soviet Russia, legal assistance to the leaders of the Communist Party arrested in Michigan, support for the Finnish revolutionary “Labor Party” and the “Daily Worker,” and, lately, the support of the strikers of Gastonia. How- ever, even the raising of funds had for its pur- pose only the maintenance and the covering of expenses of these same peoples houses and “clubs,” and this was done by arranging dances and other empty, and often harmful, amuse- ments, ‘i The reorganization, which, in connection with the general reorganization of the Party the leadership of the Communist Party carried out in 1926 also in the Finnish organizations, was unquestionably a necessary and organiza- tionally a correct measure. But in preparation for this important organizational change, the leadership of the Party made no attempt to conduct any kind of deep political, truly Bol- shevik, educational \work whwever. The Fin- nish mass organization was formally converted into a club of Finnish workers standing out- side the Party, and only about one-fifth of its membership (out of 8,000, about 1,500) re- mained members of the Communist Party, of its general nuclei, and its fractions inside the Finnish mass organization. At the same time, in the absenc2 of political preparation, there unquestionably remained outside of the Party organizations a considerable number of prole- tarians who could have developed even into better Communists than many of the old func- tionaries in the labor movement who at that time remained in the Party, but who had not the courage to get rid of their old ideological ballast. True enough, its organization had gotten rid of some of the opportunists who op- posed the reorganization (Alanne, Askeli, and, later, Boman, Laitinen and Nelson), and thus averted the threatening split. The newspapers were brought under more direct influence of the leadership of. the Party, as the result of which 2 great change for the better has been effected in their editorial work, But no new life and new content have been given to the activities'of the organization: the party nu- clei and fractions to this day still fail to carry on lively work, and the life of the club or- ganizations has become even more empty and petty-bourgeois in character. Federation sep- aratism of the Finns in the Communist move- my of America is stil far from having van- ished. One of the reasons why the reorganization was not a better success was. undoubtedly the fact that many years of fierce and largely un- principled factional struggle, which gradually infected also many of the Finnish leading com- rades, hampered Communist development in the United States. Factionalism dulled the sense of Party members who entered the opposing factions and affected them so deeply as to make them regard the interests of their re- spective factions above the interests of the Party. This prevented the education of the Party, and especially its cadres, in the. spirit of political principles, in the spirit of honest proletarian revolutionary principles which alone irresistably leads to the victory of our cause, i, e., to the victory of the revolutionary class struggle, regardless as to personal friendship or animosity, heedless of the. reciprocal in- trigues, such as were engaged in by Love- stone, Pepper, Cannon and others. The fac- tional struggle in general odstructed and ham- pered. the political activity cf the Party mem- bers at the class battlefront, weakened the Party’s work in the attraction of the working masses in preparation for the approaching great battles with the bourgeoisie, and directly discredited the Party’s authority in the eyes of the masses. Only the subsequent strict in- terference of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in the factional strug- gle was able to put a stop to this state of af- fairs. 2. The sphere of activity which was quite successful under the leadership of Finnish Party members also in the second period of post-war capitalism, and especially then, was co-operation. In the central states where Fin- nish immigrants are not concentrated many consumers’ co-operative stores and even whole- sale establishments of the Central Co-ope tive Exchange, were opened by Finnish work- ers which grew and which reached quite an important position in the general co-operative movement of the United States. It was clear that many of the Finnish workers were then greatly interested in the savings on purchas- ing, and in the co-operative stores in general, more so than in the trade union and political organizations and in the class struggle, that it was their ideal to place cooperative activity at the forefront of the mentioned forms of the class struggle, that they wanted to replace these forms by that activity. But the Finnish Communists, at whose head stood first Alanne and later Yurie Halonen, who worked: in the apparatus of the Central Co-operative, were most besmirched in right-wing tendencies. To them the co-operative became almost the sole deity. Although Halonen started out on his co-operative mission with “left” phrases against the old petty-bourgeois anti-political theories (which were too openly then being forced on the Finnish workers by the liberal “Communist” Allane), Halonen and Company themselves soon began to champion fully the opportunist position of non-politicalism and became opponents to any forms of genuine proletarian class struggle. The leadership of the Communist Party was so overwhelmed by the Lovestone crisic that it noticed too late the depth of the right deviation of Halonen and the right-wing nest which had been formed in the Central Co-op- erative Exchange. Tdéo much time had been lost which should have been used for intensive enlightenment work amongst the Finnish work- ers in order to isolate Halonen and render him harmless, Instead of the demand about Halonen’s dismissal coming from the Party center, like a bolt from the blue, without proper preparation, it was necessary long be- fore that to explain to the Party members and the sympathizers the depth of difference in the principles of Halonen and real Commu- at ie is as deep as a chasm, e beginning of the third a war capitalism in America ia ems to effect a nev’ differentiation in the Commu- nist movement of the United States. As soon as the Sixth Congress of the Communist International recorded the beginning of a new period and accordingly adopted the course of a more relentless class struggle, the Trotsky- ist opportunists in America, Cannon and Sul- kanen, began, like a pack of frightened dogs, to yelp and to run away. The Open Letter of the E. C. C. I of the spring of 1929 was fol- lowed by Lovestone’s croaking. Finally, after the Tenth Plenum of the E. C. C. L, which in the clearest possible terms pointed the door to the opportunists all over the world, Halonen, realizing that a verification of his ‘political balance sheet was at hand, ran away from the front of the workers’ class stru; iggle, (To Be Continued.o