The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 18, 1931, Page 4

r | 4 ~™ Page Four é Published by the Comprodaily Publishing Co,, Inc., daily except Sunday, at 50 Hast 13th Street, New York City. Address and mail all checks to the Daily Worker, 50 East 13th Street, New York, N. . Y. Telephone Algonquin 7956-7. Cable: “DATWORK. Daily... orker Party USA be ail everywhere: One year, $6; six months #3; two months, $1; nhattan and Bronx. New York Ctiy. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Foreign; one year, $8 six months, $4.50, KARL MARX AND THE PARIS COMMUNE By V. I. LENIN. Frem Lenin's Preface to the Russian Edition of Marx’s Letters to Dr. Kugelmann). ARX’S estimation of the Paris Commune rep- M the acme of his letters to Kugel- m estimation is especially valuable when contrasted with the arguments of the right wing of the Russian Social Revolution, Plek- hanov, who after December, 1905, faintheartedly exclaimed “They should not have taken up arms!” was so modest as to compare himself with Marx. Marx, he said hed also “put the brakes on” the revolution in 1870. Certainly Marx also “put the brake on” it. But just imagine the gaping abyss in this com- parison which Plekhanov himself makes between Plekhanov and Marx. One month before the crest of the first Rus- sian Revolutionary wave, Plekhanov, in Novem- ber, 1905, not only did not decidedly warn the t, but on the contrary spoke definitely of learning how to use arms,and of arming oneself. However, when the fight flared up a month later, Plekhanov hastened to play the role of penitent intellectual, ithout even attempt to analyze its significance, the total course of events, its connec- the preceding forms of struggle, and instead cried out: “they should not have taken up arms! In September, 1870, a half year Commune, Marx had definitely warned before the the The insurrection was an act of insanity, he wrote in the well-known address of the International. He exposed beforehand the nationalistic il- Jusions concerning the possibility of a movement in the spirit of 1792. He understood how to say, several months before, and not after! “You should not take up arms.” And what was his attitude when this, ac- cording ,to his own declaration of September, hopeless enterprise, nevertheless, began to be- come a reality in March, 1871? Did Marx, per- haps, use this deed (as Plekhanov did with the December event) just to deliver a blow at his enemies, the Proudhonists and Blanquists, who were leading the Commune? Or did he per- haps rave like a governess: “I told you so, I warned you; now there’s your romanticism for ur revolutionary delirium?” Or did he dismiss them, perhaps, as Plekhanov did the December fighters, with the sermon of a self- satisfied Philistine: “They should not have taken up arms!” No. On April 12, 1871, Marx writes an en- thusiastie letter to Kugelmann, a letter which we would like to see put up on the wall of Ty Russian Social Democrat's room, of ev lit- erate Russisan worker. Marx, who in September, 1870 had called the insurrection an act of insanity, takes in April, 1871, in view of the mass character of the popular rising, the attitude towards it of a par- ticipant devoting the greatest attention to it, the attitude of a participant in mighty and im- portant events which signify a step forward in the international historic revolutionary move- ment. This is an attempt, he writes, not merely to transfer the bureaucratic military machine to other hands, but to destroy it. And he sings a veritable Hosanna to the heroic Parisian work- ers led, by the Proudhonists and Blanquists. “What elasticity” he writes, “what historical initiative, what ability for self-sacrifice these Parisians have! . . . history knows no similar example of equal greatness!” Marx places the historical initiative of the masses above everything. Oh, if only our Rus- sian Social-Democrats would learn from Marx in reference to the evaluation of the historical initiative of the Russian workers and peasants in October and December, 1905! The bowing down of the profound thinker ~who foresaw the failure a half year in advance, before the historical initiative of the masses, and the lifeless, spiritless pedantic. © “They should not have taken up arms!”—are these | ciety | “should have and the like in this estimation of a movement storming the heavens! Marx was not permeated by the wisdom of those pen-vexers who are afraid to discuss the technique of higher forms of the revolutionary struggle. He discusses precisely the technical questions of the uprising. Attack or defense, he asks, as if it were a question of military operations, right before the gates of London. and he dicides: “unconditional attack. “They should have marched immediately to Versailles.” This was written in April, 1870, a few weeks before the mighty bloody May.... The insurgents who had begun the “insane” act (September, 1870) of storming heaven, marched immediately to Ver- sailles.” “They should not have taken up arms,” in December, 1905, in order to defend themselves by force against the first attempts at taking away the conquered liberties. Yes, it was not in vain that Plekhanov com- pared himself with Marx! “The second mistake”—continued Marx in his technical critisicm—‘“the Central Committee” (notice that the military leadership is meant here, since he is talking about the Central Com- mittee of the National Guard) “surrendered its power too early.” Marx knew how to warn the leaders against a premature uprising. . But towards the heaven- storming proletariat, however, he was a practical a co-participant in the struggle of the masses who raised the entire movement to a higher level regardless of the false theories and mistakes of Blanqui and Proudhon. “Be this as it may,” he writes, “the present uprising of Paris—even if it succomb to the wolves, swine and common curs of the old so- remains as the most glorious deed of our party since the June insurrection.” At the same time Marx did not hide from the proletariat a single error of the Commune. He dedicated to this heroic deed, a work. which up to ‘he present day is the best guide in the strug- gle for “heaven” and has remained the most frightful scarecrow for the liberal and radical “swine.” Plekhanov has dedicated a “work” to December which has almost become the gospel of the Cadets. Yes, it was not in vain that Plekhanov com- | pared himself with Marx. Kugelmann replied to Marx apparently ex- pressing doubt and pointing to the hopelessness of the sityation, to realism in contrast to ro- manticism: at least he compared the Commune— | the uprising—with the peaceful demonstration in Paris of June 13, 1849. Immediately (April 17, 187 Kugelmann propérly for this. “World history,” he writes, would certainly be very convenient to make, if the struggle could be t-"-n up only under the condition of unfail- ingly favorable odds.” In September, 1870, Marx called the uprising an act of insanity.. But when the masses arose, 1) Marx rebukes Marx wants to march with them, “wants himself | to learn with them, united in the struggle, but not to deliver sermons to them. He understands that an attempt to determine beforehand. the odds with absolute precision would be either charlatanism or hopeless pedantry. Above every- thing he places the fact that the working class is making world ‘history, courageously, self-sac- rificingly, with initiative. Marx viewed history from the standpoint of those who make it with- | out the possibility of infallibly calculating be- forehand the odds, and not from the standpoint | of the petty-bourgeois intellectual who moralizes: “Tt was easy to foresee. . .” or “They should not have taken up...” Marx even understood how to estimate the fact that there are moments in history when | a desperate struggle of the masses even for the. not as far from one akother as heaven and | incomprehensible, yes, in principle unapproach- earth? And as one who participated in the mass “struggle which he experienced together with them with the ardour and passion characteristic of him, longing in his London exile, Marx pro- ceeds to criticize the concrete steps of the “in- sanely courageous,” “the Senet ready to storm ‘the Heavens.” : ~ Oh,. how. our present-day “realistic” wiseacres ‘in the Russia of 1906 and 1907—who condemn “revolutionary romanticism, would have laughed at the Marxist Marx! How they would have made merry at the materialist, the economist, «the enemy of Utopias, who bows down before .an “attempt” at storming heaven! How many «tears would have been shed, how many con- descending smiles or how much sympathy would all such shop-keeper souls have given in view of the tendencies to rebellion, of Utopianism sake of a hopeless cause is necessary for the further education of these masses and their prep- aration for the next struggle. Such a formulation of the question is entigely | able to our present day quasi-Marxists who so eagerly quote Marx calumniatingly in order to get his estimation of the past but not the ability to create the future. Plekhanov did not even raise this question when he proceeded to the task of “putting on the brakes” after December, 1905, Marx, however, raises precisely the question without in the least forgetting that in September, 1870, he had himself recognized the insanity of an insurrection. “The bourgeois Versailles dogs,” he writes, “put the Parisians before he alternative of either taking up the struggle or of succombing without a struggle.- The demoralization of the working class in the latter case would have been a much greater misfortunte than the destruction of any number of leaders. ‘ Lessons ot the Lawrence Strike By NAT KAPLAN. ’ (Article TI) IE basic policy in the strike of 10,000 Amer- ican Woolen Company workers in Lawrence ‘was essentially correct. The fact that the Rank | and File Strike Committee and the N. T. W. U. knew how to spread the strike, knew how to extend the concrete immediate demands of the workers on the basis of the spreading strike, Suc- ceeded.in keeping the ranks of the strikers solid. in face of the great barrage of capitalist propa- ganda and threats and prevented large scale scabbing. The NTWU also demonstrated that it not only knew how to call strikes, but also how to call them off on the basis of a partial victory when no more gains could be achieved for the workers, At the time, both the Party and the union, showed great shortcomings,in Lawrence both before and during the strike. We openly draw the lessons from these shortcomings so that they can be prevented in other struggles. Although we made Lawrence a point of con- centration before the strike we did not extend the Party base there the N. T. W. U. ha dthe bulk of its members in the Pacific print and insuf- ficient attention was paid to the American Wool- en Mills, a local collective leadership was not built, we did not raise the ideological level of the workers through a steady campaign expos- ing the American Legion and Musteites and through a mass distribution of the Labor Unity and Daily Worker. ‘The shortcomings before the strike reflected themselves in the course of the struggles, During the strike the chief weakness was the insuffi- | cient attention paid to organizing the ranks of the strikers and building the NTWU on a mass scale. Only 700 new members were enrolled in the union in the course of the strike. Over 500 were enrolled in the union before the strike. The Strike Committee was too narrow. It only had 50 to 60 members when it should have had at least 150 members. A larger strike committee would have given the union a better gauge of the sentiments of the strikers and could not have been so easily dispersed by the police terror. Women strikers should have been added to the committee. the Strike Committee members were correctly drawn in as the policy makers of the strike, they were not made local organizers of the strike and the union. There was not a persistent enough attack dur- ing the strike against the U. T. W. and the Musteites (the group which met in the police station, etc.). Now that the capitalist forces are trying to ruh the N, T. W.°U. out of Lawrence the danger of the company calling in the UTW and the Musteites becomes acute. On the basis of the first week of the strike the TUUL should have organized mass solidar- ity meetings in Boston and other centers. It was a costly mistake not to bring in Labor Unity on @ mass scale as the strikers’ official organ and to bring in the Daily Worker as the cham- pion of the workers’ interests. ‘These mistakes could have been called to the attention of the union if the Party District Committee had been called to mect during the strike. Organizational THE MAD DOG OF CUBA By BURCK | | PARTY LIFE Write About Your Experiences HEN Party comrades are asked to write of | their experiences encountered in the strug- | | gle, the usual reply is that “I am not a writer,” | or that “I do not know how.” This, unques- tionably is a remnant of the old petty-bourgeois conception that to “write” means to possess the ability of an “author,” to be an intellectual and that such tasks must be confined to the “pro- fessional” cadres in our Party. This orientation within the Party finds its reflection in the ranks of the workers who fol- low our Party press but will not write for it. The underestimation of the importance of developing worker correspondents in each District, of en- couraging the workers in the mills, shops, mines >and agricultural centers to write about their con- ditions to their organ is due to the fact that our own functionaries do not appreciate the import- ance of developing this activity among the broad masses, nor do they themselves practice it. The importance of the interchange of ex- periences gained in the process of building the | Party and developing struggles in the various Districts, was very sharply brought out at the Regiénal Conferences held recently. The prevailing conception in the Party is that the big centers, i. e., N. Y., Detroit, Chicago, etc., are the important places and the most sig- nificant ones. Yet, while listening to the re- ports of the Section Organizers from the small, remote industrial sections one felt that their experionces were of invaluable benefit to the comrades from the big centers. These section organizers are largely separated from the Center— due t> distance and in many cases due to lack of sufficient directives given from the Center— and must solve their numerous problems them- selves, during which process they develop new forces and, what is more significant, they draw in the workers from the mines and mills into the work of the Party. , It is absolutely essential that these comrades from the outlying industrial and agricultural sections begin to write for the Party Organizer and ta Party Life column in the Daily Worker. The lessons derived from their mistakes and suc- cesses must be put at the disposal of all other functionaries who are faced with similar dif- ficulties while applying the program of the Patty in the day to day activities. Whi comrades are assigned to write short articles for the Party Organizer they must con- sider it as a task that must be carried out in time. “Write as you fight” is not only a slogan for the masses but must be concretized by the responsible comrades who put forth this slogan. Workers! Join the Party of | Your Class! ; Communist Party 0. S A | P. O. Box 87 Station D. | New York City. Please send me more information on the Cum- | Munist Party. Name City . | Occupation . .Mail this to the Central Ofce, Communist Party, P. O. Box 87 Station D. New York City. looseness by the Party was indicated ‘in the fail- ure to recruit individual strikers into the Party. The Lawrence strike was the beginning of a wave of strike struggles in New England against capitalist rationalization. The NTWU is now preparing and organizing for a general struggle in the American Woolen Company mills that have already heen affected by direct wage cuts, In these preparations and in the battles to come we must profit from the lessons of the Law- rence Strike, Lessons of EDITOR'S NOTE: The article of Comrade Alexander Trachtenberg is part of an introduc-' tiou written by him for the pamphlet: The Paris €ommune—A Story in Pictures, by William Seigel, just issued as No. 12 of the International | Pamphlet Series. ~ . 8 By ALEXANDER TRACHTENBERG. ARCH 18, 1931, marks the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Paris Commune —the first attempt at a prolétarian dictatorship. Again and again the story has been told: how Napoleon III (the Little) attempted to bolster up the decaying regime of the Second Empire by declaring war on Prussia in July, 1871; how he met his debacle at Sedan and exposed Paris | to the Prussian troops; how a bourgeois repub- | lic was proclaimed in September and a so-called Government of National Defense organized; how this government betrayed the besieged city and | how the Parisian masses rose, arming themselves for its defense; how they proclaimed the Com- mune on March 18, when the government at- tempted to disarm their National Guard, and how they took the government of the city into their own hands; how the traitorous Thiers Gov- ernment withdrew to Versailles and there plotted with the Prussians the overthrow of the Com- mune; and how the Parisian workers held the Commune for seventy-two days, defending it to the last drop of blood when the Versailles troops had entered the city and slaughtered tens of thousands of the men and women who had dared | | | | | seize the government of the capital and run it | for the benefit of the exploited and disinherited. | Wherever workers will gather to hear once | more the story ef this heroic struggle—a story | that has long since become a treasure of pro- letarian lore—they will honor the memory of the | martyrs of 1871. But they will also remember | those martyrs of the class struggle of today who have either been slaughtered or still smart in the dungeons of capitalist and colonial countries. for daring to rise against their oppressors—as the Parisian workers did sixty years ago. The Battle-Front Is Far Flung The Paris Commune lasted only 72 days, but it had a great many victims. More than 100,000 men and women were killed or exiled to the colonies when the bourgeoisie triumphed. Today the revolutionary battle-front is spread over a greater territory. It encircles almost the entire globe. Fierce ‘class struggles are being fought in all capitalist and colonial countries; and tens of thousands of workers and peasants are killed or imprisoned.. The total number of victims of fascism, the white terror and police brutality during the past years runs into many hundreds of thousands. Workers everywhere are rising to the defense of these victims of capitalist class justice, and the annivessary of the Com- mune calls especial attention to this important class duty of the workers. ‘ ‘ In commemorating the Paris Commune of 1871 the workers everywhere will hear in mind the constant war danger that threatens the Soviet Commune of today; and they will organize for its defense. The Paris Commune suffered in part because it was isolated from other industrial e@mters and from the village districts, and be- cause the international Jabor#movement was then still too weak to be of material as“‘stance to it. That is not true today. The Soviet Union has become an integral part of the revolutionary labor movement in all capitalist countries, and of the national liberation movements in the colonies. The working masses will leap to its defense and fight for it because they recognize that it is a part of their own struggle against capitalism nad imperialism. But the workers will ngt only. draw inspiration from ‘he heroic deeds of the Communards, who were “ready to storm the heavens” (Marx). They will not only recall their martyrdom to build defense organizations and arouse the entire working class to struggle for thé liberation of.’ all’ class war prisoners in capitalist edunttles, but they will also review-the story of the Com- mune in the light of its achievements as well as of the errors and shortcomings for which the Paris workers paid so dearly. The absence of a disciplined, well-knit revolu- tionary leadership both prior to and after the establishment of the Commune spelled disaster at the outset. There was no unified and theo- the Paris Commune | immediately have marched on Versailles, as soon | were the acts of a workers’ government legislat- retically sound working class political party to i of the masses. Several groups competed for lead- ership—the Prudhonists, the Blanquists and the Internationalists were the most representative of them. And this doomed the Commune to | continued confusion and indecision, to a lack of planning and of a long range program. Piece- meal, day-to-day treatment of a rapidly devel- oping revolutionary situation with utter neglect of tactics seemed to have been the practice of the leaders, -/ Even the limited authority of the first days of the uprising was relinquished. As Marx noted in the celebrated letter to his friend Kugelmann, | written on April 12, 1871, “the Central: Com- | mittee (of the National Guard) relinquished its | powers too soon to pass them on to the Com- mune.” Marx, the centralist, realized that a successful revolutionary struggle against Thiers’ govern- ment could have been carried out by the Paris workers only under the leadership of a central- ized revolutionary authority with military re- sources at its comfhand. This authority wa the Central Committee of the National Guard, but by renouncing its powers and turning its au- thority over to the loosely organized Commune, it dissipated the revolutionary energy of its armed forces. He followed this with a criticism of another error which was one of the costliest of the Com- mune: “If they are to be defeated it will be because of their ‘magnanimity. They should as Viny and the reactionary portion of the Na- tional Guard escaped from Paris. The: oppor- | tune moment was missed on account of ‘con- | scientiousness.’ ” | Marx, the revolutionary strategist, knew that when the enemy of revolutionary Paris was on | the run, it was the job of the National Guard to pursue Thiers’ defeated army and annihilate it, rather than to allow it time to reorganize its forces and return to fight the Paris workers. The “magnanimity” of the leaders of the Commune which Marx criticized lew them to allow the ministers of the Thiers government and its reactionary supporters to depart to Ver- sailles in peace, there to reorganize their forces and conspire against the Commune: it kept | them ‘from taking hostages from among the prominent bourgeois leaders who remained in the city and who took the opportunity to act as spies and form centers of counter-revolu- tionary activity, Had the Commune disarmed those troops which were under the influence of the reactionary government and held them in the city, they could have won over a great part of them, and neutralized others. Instead they were permitted to depart in peace to Versailles, and to remain there under the continued tute- lage of the reactionary militarists, After the capture of power comes the imme- diate task of holding it and using it to spread and dgepen the revolutionary struggle. When the Russian workef's seized power in October, 1917, they did not rest there. Having learned from the mistakes af the Commune, the Russian Bolsheviks led the workers to a further offen- sive, not to end until every vestige of the old order has been uprooted and destroyed in the entire country and the working class firmly en- tranched, 4 The Commune was a struggle for power on the part'of the working class. It was not merely a change of administration that the Paris work- ers saw in the development of the struggle. The clearest among the leaders, the followers of the International, knew that the conflict was as- suming the proportions of a social revolution, although they, as well as the others, failed to work out the tactics necessary for the direction of the struggle. if The decrees. of the Commune separating the church from the state, confiscating church property, taking over the deserted factories, abolishing the payment of fines levied upon workers, prohibiting night work in bakeshops, etc., were all acts of great social import. These ing in the interest of the working class. But the Commune did not take over all the fac- tories, It did not take over the Bank of France, Instead, it went there to borrow (sic!) money for its revolutionary needs, Although the Commune seized the powers of the State, it tried to operate within the frame- Dut itself at the head of this elemental rising | work of the old State apparatus, Marx warned "4 vid | though we promise to give some of the accom- | more expense likely on the radio, and we ought Betofasta By JORGE We Catch Fish in the Air! Whee, and what a whopper! What a flock of whoppers! All because you boys and girls, com- rades all, chipped in and fixed it so that a spiffy little radio is now standing over in the corner , and we just came back from listening to the Big Fish himself over WEAF. Now we know what a peril innocent looking pulpwood can be. Fish says it is “murderous,” and moreover, it “competes with free American labor,” which is about the limit in lies, Prac- tically no American pulpwood is used in Ameri- can paper mills, and what is used comes ‘from. the New England region and cannot be used for. high class paper. So the mills used to import better pulpwood from Canada. ‘The Canucks got wise and, since the Canadian spruce stands on Crown lands, the Canadian government passed a law that prohibited expor- tation of the pulpwood of King George, so the American paper mills had to move operations mostly into Canada where Mr. Fish’s “free Amer- iean labor” turned out to be Canadians who doesn’t know they're free! Now when the Soviet began to ship pulpwood, which American paper mills say is far better ever’ than Canadian, said American companies saw a chance of freeing themselves from dependency on Canadian crown lands timber and again op- ening their mills in the U. S. A. where, if Fish really wants “free American labor” employed, they might be employed though they wouldn’t be free. But Mr. Fish stepped forward and, with a tremor in his voice, said: “No! Woodman, spare that pulpwood! It is soaked in blood, b-l-0-0-d |” That's what he said Monday night over WEAF. And we conclude from it that if he is not getting paid by King George’s minions he is scabbing on the Prince of Wales. But we want to acknowledge the contributors to the Daily’s radio fund, briefly as possible, panying good letters attention later on—take more space for them. A topliner was the Unemployed Council of Albany with $1. Trachtenburg of Dorchester, Mass., matched Joe Fisher of Monroe, Michigan; with $1. Comrade Gaims of Denver wouldn't walk a mile-for a Camel, but showed up in New, York with a dollar for the radio. That “little group of serious thinkers” delivered the $6 O, K. Comrade Leviton from Chicago landed with $1, end so did Sonia G, from away out San Ber- nardino way. M. R. K. comes up with $1 which he said should be used for the leaflet for the drouth-strickert farmers—for whieh there-is still need and some criticism,we shall take under advisement as the judges say. ©, Koster of Chicago thinks we're < wow of a columnist and pays $1 to say so. Mar- tin D. of Paterson sent a good letter and $1. The John Reed Club of Chicago lands with $3 and a letter we'll remember, Carl Brodsky encloses $1 with something in- teresting about the schools, T. R. W. of Brook- lyn wrote a check for $3 but only $2 of it for the radio fund ‘and the other for the ‘‘shock troops.” Joan §&., also from Brooklyn didn’t say much, but said it with a dollar. J, M. S., who'll you re= member as asking if he does enough collected another $1 from I. W. another comrade sympa- thizer who wants to know if he may help at some other work; he may indeed, and we ask hiny to call around some time at the Daily office an ask for “Wex.” Then Phylis M. from up Second Avenue, writes us a pleasing note with one large substantial dollar. Now whatta we goin’ t’do with all that? war the radio wrangler who saw us at the opportune moment took $50 and went out and came back with a hump-backed machine that he set up and is still working with to attack earphones and other jimcracks. But it talks now! and sings— and gosh how it lies! * Z Minus the $1 from M. R. K. which is to go for the farmers’ leaflet, we have $23 newly acknowl- edged. Previously acknowledged $59.52; total $82.52. Minus the $50 we are already set back by the radio, we have $32.52 left. There is some to hold some for tubes and other upkeep. We've a notion that our good comrades who have done so nobly for our radio will not objett if we make up the $10.50 yet needed to make‘up’ the $15 to get out 8,000 of those leaflets for the southern farmers. That would leave us with’ something around $15 for radio upkeep. That's enough. So keep your money. 4 Oh yes, and tell your neighbors about Fish’s bold fight for King George’s pulpwood! against this when, in his April 12 letter, he wrote of “the destruction of the bureaucratic political machine” as a prerequisite for a prole- tarian revolution. In his classic study of the Commune, The Civil War in France, an address read to the General Council of the First Inter- , be national two days after the fall of the Com- suf mune, he devoted a good deal of attention mit the The hold of the read-made State machinery ten wield it for its own purpose.” the The Commune—the First Proletarian RB 10 Many are the lessons which the Comm ate has bequeathed to the international worl (at! class. Marx, Engels and Lenin have studied the Commune closely, and the Russian workers showed that they mastered the lessons of thé first proletarian revolution. 4 The Commune is the great tradition of the French working class. The mute walls of Pere Ja Qnaise remind the French. workers of the heroism of their proletarian fathers who fought for freedom from wage slavery. The Commune is also the heritage of the entire proletariat. It was the first revolution with the workers not only fighting in it but also controlling and di- recting it towards proletarian aims, The Commune was the first attempt at prole- tarian dictatorship. It was not victorious, but it was the prototype of the, successful dictator- ship inaugurated by the Russian workers forty- six years afterwards, ' ¢ RERRQABERB*OSERERASES The Paris Commune {is an epoch-making v achievement of the revolutionary working class, &tt Marx's tribute at the cloke of his historic “Ad-i he dress” testifies to the fealty of the world's ar proletariat to the memory of the valiant Com-—f 0 munards and to the cause in behalf of whichf ‘8b they fought: “Workingmen's Paris, with its 8h Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glo- ® rious harbinger of the new society. Its martyr, are enshrined in the great heart of the wo class, Its exterminators has nailed to that pillory from which all the ers of their pylests will not avail to them.” ‘