The Daily Worker Newspaper, June 4, 1932, Page 6

{ Q | 1 By JAMES W. FORD Article 12 JAMES W. FORD Candidate the Communist to t Vice-~ all the exploded ar- oisie; 1. That 2s between black That Negro workers and will slavishly ac- sed upon them by the ding role in the class ican white workers are nt from all other workers will not join in any ich is offensive to the The vile slander of the te Le “DAIWORK.” er, 50 Hast 18th Street, New York, N. ¥. Dav Yorker’ Party US.A. By mail everywhere: One of Manhattan and Bronx, New York City. oe SUBSCRIPTION RATWS: » $6; six months, $3; two months, $1; Foreign: one year, $8; cepting Boroughs siz montha, $4.50 bourgeoisie that Negro workers join the revo- lutionary movement not because of their readi- ness to fight against capitalist persecution and exploitation, but “for the chance to mingle freely with white women in the movement.” (Mr. Frank Davis, editor of the “Atlanta World”). k they clinch their ion that even assum- “best intentions of the Communists, the ct any change in the at- vaite rs at present under of white bourgeois ideology. ‘vile acceptance of these white bour- uments shows to what depths these ro editors will sink. Shamelessly licking before their white the slimiest excretions of They admit all the facts ering of the Negro masses ersecution, lynch ter- over-crowding, peon- mt, etc. But they . but Communism, as the desperately strive to main- stem and their tful suff ive and reactionary arguments. Such nents do not’ explain social movements and , but serve to maintain the brutal cap- T he Socialist Party-Socialist in Name, But Social-Fascist in Deeds | By L. AMTER. the “Socialist” rty parading un- ” Party is composed ave not the slightest . Sewer Socialists— ee, Beer Socialists—Hey ral Socialists —Morris Hillquit. These are the leadership of the can be grouped into two alled “militants”—Hoan, k, Coleman and Bright; ual Socialists—Hillquit, Bela Low and Schub. tired of the “gradualness” Hillquit and Oneal; the look with disgust upon the it mayor of Milwaukee, Hoan, 1 the sewer system of that praise of capitalist politi- capitalist budget of that nvention, however, said noth- clubbing of the unemployed of ’s socialist police; the break- capitalists of Milwaukee e So ist administration. Hill- hing about Darlington Hoope, rep- Pennsylvania State Legisla- a “nationalization” bill for rided the “beer” socialist, Broun, m “Socialism as a novelty.” Hill- ing words for Thomas, Vladeck pal, who, as manager of Abe Ca- Daily Forward, knows as much does Hillquit); for Paul y Affairs Committee, who, and other fakers of his homas as one of those so- cialist: ve that they “can organize a Socialist movement out of college students” and liberals. But Hillquit said nothing about Thomas lning up with J. Pierpont Morgan in support of the Block Aid scheme of the capitalists of New York mey out of the pockets of the employed to afford re! for the unemployed. g about Thomas’ role in “cleans- ing” the Tammany administration of New York ag about Thomas's Schenectady, in which he declared that the Walker Tammany machine in New York City is mo More corrupt than that of other cities, and practically defended Walker. He said nothing about the City Central Commitee of the “Social- Norman Thomas. | speech at | ist” Party referring the motion to condemn the | Block Aid speech of Thomas to the City Execu- tive Committee and thereby killing it. The “militant 2 the other hand, Ibattle to get rid of Hillquit in their as chairman of the ocialism tant,” and, according to underground capitalist, killing a foe by subterranean Hilauit, tsarist mi radualness” and | in our | propaganda of wanting an “American Socialism,” and calling Hillquit a Jew. “Is it my fault that I was born a Jew? You want to drive me out as chairman? Principle or © principle, I remain chairman!” The vote was 7,526 to 6,984. verybody felt sorry that Mayor Hoan, who ated against Hillquit, should be de- own city, but “principle is principle” —and the “militants” were defeated. And this in face of the fact that the “militants” put for- ward Hoan as their candidate, although they state in their program that “when socialists are elected as the results of campaigns which have strongly reformistic tendencies (which obviously refers to Hoan—LA.), it is difficult to recognize the difference’ between a socialist gevernment and a ‘good government’ administration.” (Good for whom?—I.A.) This is the “Socialist” Party! This was the basis of the deliberations of the Socialist Party convention. And, when it was all over, Thomas was nominated for socialist presidential candi- date—by Louis Waldman, the staunch lieutenant of Hillquit. What is the first qualification of a correct so- cialist candidate, according to Waldman? “He must be a thorough-going socialist.” A sewer cleaner for the Tammany administration, an advocate of Block Aid in alliance with J. P. Morgan, a “liberal” socialist! According to ladeck, Thomas, in his latest book, demon- strates that “on the two main theses of Marxian Philosophy, the economic interpretation of his- tory and the class struggle, he (Thomas) re- mains adamantly unconvinced.” And yet Vla- deck considers him a “socialist.” And Waldman called him “a thorough-going socialist!” The nomination went over unanimously! Maurer was added for good measure, for E was nomi feated in hi And “Teal } Socialism.” When all the cheers were over, and Hillquit, Thomas, Maurer and Hoan’ spoke, then it was a love-feast. Hillquit “sounded the keynote.” Hoan declared that “every word uttered by Hill- quit was pure gold!” Thomas declared that he approved “the beautiful and noble speech of Hill- quit!” This is the sewer-beer-liberal-gradual Socialist Party! This is the party that has a program for workers and farmers getting out of the crisis! This is the party that took out and kept out the “class struggle” from its constitution! This is the party of Hillquit, Thomas, Broun, Oneal, Viadeck, Hoan and Maurer! What has this party to do with the workers? How ca nthe workers have anything to do with the “Socialist” Party, except to See that it plays with radical words, carries on sewer politics, raises beer to a high policy, and—has nothing to do with the class struggle, except to deny its ex- istence and thus keep the workers from struggle and sell them out! The Communist Party, with its clear-cut Marxian program of class struggle of the working class against the capitalist class, issues the. call to action to all workers who still look to the “Socialist” Party to learn the lesson from the Milwaukee Convention. The National Nomin- ating Convention of the Communist Party was the answer! italist system which thrives on the exploitation and mysery of the working-class. All of their arguments against Communism are aimed to bolster up this vicious system. Their arguments are the cheapest of apologies for capitalism. This shows the complete bankruptcy of the Negro bourgeoisie. These are the gentlemen who speak of “leading” the struggles to emancipate the Negro toilers and bitterly attack the grow- ing hegemony of the Negro proletariat over the Negro liberation movement. These are the géh- tlemen who sneeringly refer to the toiling Ne- gro masses as “the ignorant sections of the Ne- gro race.” Moreover, behind all of the arguments of these bourgeois Negro editors is not only a lack of | faith in their arguments but a real knowledge that these arguments do not correspond to the facts. These gentlemen know, and admit, that constantly new sections of the white working- class are taking up the struggle for the innocent Scottsboro boys and for equal rights for the Negro people. This is happening under the leadership of the Communist Party. The work- ing-class is being given leadership and a prin- ciple—a class policy of its own against the class Policy of the white bourgeoisie and its agents: the Greens, Wolls, Du Boises, Thomases, etc. * One of the results of the activities of the Communist Party was seen in the presence of scores of white southern workers at the Na- tional Nominating Convention of the Commun- ist Party in Chicago. These southern workers came to fight under the banner of Commun- ism on the basis of complete equality of the Negro masses. They stood up at the convention and gave full support to the program of the Communist Party, declaring their determination to fight for Negro rights, and to win the south- ern white masses to that fight. Most of them were already actively engaged in this fight. \m Atlanta, 6 workers (four of them white) are facing death for the “crime” of organizing Negro and white workers together. A year ago in Texas, two native born workers, Coder and Hurst, were jailed for their activities in the struggle for Negro rights, They were later released—into the hands of a waiting gang of white business men. They. were brutally beaten up, thrown into a river and left for dead. This not only shows that white workers, even in the South, can be won for the Communist program of Negro equality, for the fight for Negro rights, but it also shows the bitter hos- tility of the white ruling class to this program. The arguments of these bourgeois Negro ed- itors show that they cannot conceive of the Ne- gro workingclass daring to fight against its im- perialist oppressors. What is this but the white bourgeois theory of Negro inferiority? They re- fuse to see the role of the Negro working-class as an integral part of the working-class as a whole in the process of making the revolution in the United States and building up Socialism. ‘They cannot conceive of the Negro working-class as part of the proletarian dictatorship putting down reaction, stamping out white chauvinism and establishing their rights. In their grovelling servility to the white bour- Geoisie, these gentlemen cannot imagine a state of affairs in which whites do not rule. They constantly prate of the “treatment” that is, and “will be handed down” to Negroes. In all of their arguments they show their complete ac- ceptance and support of the white bourgeois dictum that Negroes are inferior, that Negroes “must stay in their place,” that they can only expect such “rights” as the white ruling class condescends to permit them. What is the basis for this inferiority complex on the part of these bourgeois Negro editors? The Negro bourgeoisie is a parasitic bourgeoisie. It is not connected with the industries. It has developed on the basis of Jim Crowism. Its economic base is a Jim Crow base. Its business activities are almost exclusively confined to small businesses, like insurance, rent collections, ete. Its existence is based on the segregation and Jim Crow policies of the white bourgeoisie. It thrives most where segregation is most en- forced. And it sees in the growing unity of the Ne- gro and white masses a direct threat against its Jim Crow economic base. The growing unity of the white and Negro toilers threaten to break through this Jim Crow base. This drives the Negro bourgeoisie more and more into the camp of the imperialist enemy. Their sham opposition to the white ruling class is merely in the nature of a manouvering for concessions, for a larger share in the profits from the increasingly bitter exploitation of the Negro masses. They do not seek to break down the system of oppression. Rather they come out more and more openly in its defense. Their aim is merely for a fuller participation in the profits inside of the system which so frightfully op- presses, degrades as robs ae toiling Negro masses. * (In tomorrow's Pane Worker I will deal with, examine more in detail Dr. Du Bois’ arguments in the June “Crisis” as well as his arguments in his programatic article in the September (1931) “Crisis”.) The Revolutionary Struggles of the Polish Masses for the Defense of the Soviet Union The proletarian and the toiling Masses of Poland are against war and against spilling their blood in at each of the plants: — following large “Pocisk,” “Frannashek” AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION. IN CASE- WAR BREAKS OUT three continuous days. ‘The penalty meted out by the tke interests of the imperialists. This may be judged from the fol- lowing few incidents of the struggle of the working-class of Poland against the danger and war and interventioin. The workers of the war indu- stries are setting out for struggle against capitalistic attacks, despite all obstacles. Thus, the workers of the State Airplane factory at Biala Podliaska were getting paid only 50 per cent of their wagés ‘for a period of three months. The carpenter department decided to call a strike. A strike committee, elected at a meeting of the workers, declared a stoppage. The stoppage lasted 6 days and ended with a full victory for the workers. ‘The Communist Party of Poland conducted an Anti-War Week at the end of March. Militant meet~- ings were held at the largest metal- Turgical plants as well’as at plants of the war industries, There were two mass meetings atthe Gerlach Plant; there was one mass meeting ‘ | and at the railroad shops of the factory “Locomotive.’ These mass meetings and demonstrations were attended by 8,000 workers. Aside from the above, there were num- erous mass meetings and demon- strations at several smaller indus- trial plants. Antiwar demonstrations were taking place at the Wilna district, too. There, the toiling peasants have organized anti-war demon- strations in many localities under the slogan of the defense of the Soviet Union. These demonstrations were in opposition ‘o reunions of the whiteguardist groups of the notorious general Bulak-Balak~- hovich. ‘We are quoting below an appeal to the Polish soldiers: “DO NOT PERMIT ANYONE TO USE YOU FOR SUPPRESSION OF STRIKES AND DEMONSTRA- TIONS. WHEN COMPELLED TO DO SO, JOIN WITH YOUR ARMS THE CAUSE OF THE FIGHTING WORKERS AND PEASANTS. DO, NOT BE PROVOKED TO A WAR “ AGAINST THE U. 5. S. R., JOIN WITH YOUR ARMS THE RED ARMY.” No wonder, therefore, tsat the bourgeois press expresses anxiety over the conduct of recruits. There Were recent reports in the press of a demonstration of recriits at the railroad station Orany in Western White Russia. Widespread Unrest in Army Dissatisfaction is also widespread in the army and manifesto itself in various ways. Thus, the soldiers of a regiment, stationed at Kielcy have elected a delegation which presented demands to their officers for better conditions, Another similar in- stance happened at Lomja, where soldiers have refused to appear for the evening roll call. At the fort- ress of Warsaw soldiers have de- monstrated against any unsatisfac- tory dinner. They kept on pound- ing their spoons on the tables until a better dinner was provided. At a training school for seargents in Demblin the students refused to accept unsatisfactory dinners for , fascist courts in Poland for the reading. and possession of Commu- * nist literature, is hard labor. How- ever, revolutionary papers and pamphlets are being read and pass from hand to hand until worn and illegible. B.oklets about the second Five Year Plan, about the Red Army etc., have a lively cir- culation, No less popular is the revolutionary literature for soldiers, particularly the underground maga- zine, “The Armory.” The struggle of the Polish work- ing masses against the war danger has not yet been developed with full force, But facts from the life of workers, peasants and soldiers speak of the presence of , suitable conditions for the development of @ mass revolutionary anti-war movement, particularly for the de- fense of the Soviet Union. There- fore, the major task of the Com- munist Part yof Poland is to broaden this movement, to instill more life in it and to give it a correspondingly broad sweep. 4 MORGAN’S RELIEF! By BURCB Toward Revolutionary Mass Work ( T= resoliffon of the Central Committee cor- rectly points out our serious shortcomings and the necessity to make the turn toward mass work and the radical improvement in the meth- ods of work in our lower organizations. The pur- pose of this article is to show the “FORMAL- ISM” with which concentration has been carried out in the basic industries in the past, such as on the waterfront. In the fall of 1930 a unit in New York whose composition and specific task are unknown to the writer, concentrated, in accordance with in- structions, for some time on a specific dock, sent in splendid reports and theh all of a sudden it was discovered that no longshoremen had worked upon this dock for years. Naturally such a situation was scandalous, especially when another resolution came out stressing the importance of mass work in the basic industries. So section was assigned for “concentration” to assume responsibility for building the M.W.I.U. and especially to aid in strengthening the longshore work. Face to the Docks. Two docks were selected, and two units were assigned to each dock and there was a division of work, one unit to do “union” work, the other to do “party” work. One unit had to hold a union street meeting, the other a party meeting, each week. The basic task outlined was to or- ganize grievance committees around the condi- tions prevailing on the dock. The composition of the units was based upon the theory that we must develop stable forces to carry on work amongst the longshoremen which would insure continuity of work.» Thus the idea was to prevent the tendency of the sea- men who are transients to concentrate into one or two units (where their work in the past had been to build block committees). The units were reorganized, from selected proletarian material throughout the section. After the reorganiza- tion it was found these best materials were ar- tists, functionaries in mass organizations, etc.; and one unit was a unit which had done spien- did work in Jewish neighborhoods on the lower East Side and was therefore assigned for work amongst the longshoremen. Some of these units did not even hive a seaman in them, let alone a@ longshoreman. ‘The work of the union and units was sup- posed to be co-ordinated. This was never achieved. The leadership of the units were non- marine workers, the comrades who were active in longshore work in the union had no leading role in the units. To Organize Dock Committee, ‘The basic tasks of the units was té organize dock committees. Most of the work was done in the name of the Party, and the bulletins which appeared more or less regularly in the name of the Party, and once in a while when the.union issued a leaflet it was*done inde- pendent of the units. There was not the proper co-ordination of work and the unit leadership would accuse the union leadership of failing to give advice and support to the units. Some units, also, would want to work completely independent of the union. _ Actives in the union would accuse the units of wanting to build a dock nucleus be- fore building a dock committee. All this time the section was supposed to be “concentrating” on the waterfront, but ils major activities naturally were on the lower East Side, where it has considerable influence. Its lead- ership was non-marine in composition, conse- quently little or no attention was paid to the work, except to re-organize the units every once in a while. A New Turn, Nothing was achieved except to accumulate a lot of contacts and cause much confusion, and it was decided, in view of the developing war situation, that something must be done. In the winter of 1931-32 a waterfront sub-section was organized. The composition of the units was all marine workers (seamen) with a few “selected comrades” to give the section stability and political leadership. The composition changed, but there was no discussion upon the tasks or methods of work, and the same old By R. B. HUDSON procedure was followed out. Now we have @ unit composed of seamen, concenirating on a dock amongst longshoremen, and the unit or- ganizer is a non-marine worker, non-union. The longshore organizer of the union is a bystander in the unit. ‘The present composition makes a complicated situation, as the following shows: Party members attend union meetings, where because they are largely seamen the major task is to mobilize them for union work and to ori- entate them toward organizing in the place of work and to develop activity ashore amongst the unemployed seamen and visiting ships. The union’s major task jis to approach them about conditions where they work, at the same time trying to draw in the more capable comrades into longshore activity. “Then these same Perty members attend their unit meetings, where they are told by non- union, non-seamen or longshoremen that their _main task is to build a dock committee amongst the longshoremen, in the name of the Com- munist Party. = Later on these same Party members attend a fraction meeting, where they get hell because they have not been active enough aboard ship in bullding ship committees, recruiting for the union and developing struggle there. Thus the Party members are in a difficult position: in the union they are given one task, responsible to a certain leadership. In the unit they are given another task (but Still to build the union) and responsible to a different lead- ership, They carry on union work in the name of the union—then union work in the name of the Party. Now we are beginning to believe that some- thing is wrong again and it is assumed that it is a question of approach. Therefore, instead of DISCUSSION OF THE: 14TH PLENUM. issuing the Bulletin in thé namie of the Party, the unit will now issue if in the name of the union. The situation is more fundamental than this. This is merely another formal manner in rem- edying things. Briefly,. what is wrong is that no one clearly knows what the tasks of the unit are and how to carry out these tasks. Organ- izational chaos preyails because there is no polit- ical claffty. I think that the solution is to be found in this: During all the time that these different methods of work were carried on the members of the units were never asked what the condi- tions were where they were working and what their activities were there. No, never, the work of the Communist Party. was not there, the “concentration” was on this dock, therefore this unit must all concentrate on this dock. The ‘units were concerned with doing and developing work in every place except where the members of the unit worked or would be working. We had roots in the factories—but we tried ‘ to transplant them some place else. It must become the tasks of the waterfront. units to de- velop and nurture these roots so that they will not turn into dry roots. ~ These questions of our past shortcomings and formal approach to the -work-are raised to stim- ulate discussion in all of the units, which will enable the Section, with the aid of the District Buro (which must bear the major responsibility for the situation), to bring tothe membership a clear conception of what the task of the Units is, how the work can be co-ordinated with the MARINE WORKERS’ INDUSTRIAL UNION. Until this is done it will be impossible to mob- ilize the membership for mass work and to break down our isolation “from the’ workers. The Myth of High Wages in the Building Trades AP QUITE FREQUENT intervals statements in the daily press d-vell’on the high earning power of the building trades’ worker. Compari- sons are made between the scary of professors or some department executives in banks, and that of a bricklayer, plasterer, painter, eic., giving the latter by deliberate wrong compu- tation a higher yearly income than the former. When such statements are made, they in- yariably come either from real estate people, as an excuse for their high rent, or else from the building contractor as \an excuse for the high cost of construction. When the earoing power of a painter, carpenter, electrician, ctc, is given it is set down at the rate of $13.20 and that of a marble man, plasterer or bricklayer at $14 or more per dey. The general public for which these statements are meant takes it for granted that at the above rates and 6 days per week these trades aro making $79.20 and $64 respec-. tively, or in the year the pretiy sum of $4113.40 and $4368 respectively. “Bootleg Wages” ‘That the building trades hereabouts are work-. ing five Gays a week and are paid per day, losing every holiday, cf which there are nine in the year, also that they are working with very few exceptions part time, the public need not know. Another factor which gives the’ high wage theorist the lie is “boootleg wages.” What is bootleg wages? About two weeks ago a state~ ment emanating from the offce of the Building Trades Employers’ Association spoke quite clearly about bootleg wages, also what a “damaging effect it has on the honest contractor or em- ployer.” -Bootleg wages are wages paid below the rate entered into by mutual agreement be- tween the employer and the employee. This practice has always existed, even in the boom days of the building industry, but it is a calamity today. The men are unemployed for months and are open for bargaining to the tune of from $3 to $5 per day below the agreed wage scale, and this is an open secret, The following authentié Statistics taken in the first half of January,"1932, Local Union 499, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper- hangers of New York City, gives avery clear picture of the carnitig=power of union painters for the year 1931: This questionnaire wad-given to each member of the local: . “Are you working PS trade at present? “Flow many days wu work at your trade in the year 1931 (include work | ‘that you con~ tracied for yourself) Pe" o-~-~ \ Real Conditions, — To the firct question; ~22-per. cent reported working and 78 per cent reported unemployed, To the second quéstléii<the average time worked by the members-ofthe. local in 1931 was 68 days. Allowing $1820-per-day; it gives them an income of $897.60 for 1981, As the painters, © like r workers in building trades have the b-day week less 9 legal holidays in the year, it gives them 251 working days. The $097.60 earned in 1931, divided by 251 days, sises—them'the astounding daily average income Of"$3:90-—~. If one takes into consid2vation ‘the admitted underpaying of wages and the proposed 25 per cent reduction of wages beginning May 1, the building trades workers will be thie: poorest paid mechanics in the country. The very men that are creating the Ale will be: unable to live in them, “great philanthropist who ‘are “trying to wipe out the slums” by. creating new buildings, charging the modest sum vof’$16 per room, say they are doing the working people a big service, They are only providing work; to live in these 16 rooms, never. The workingman’s family con- sists of an average of four people; he requires not less than four rooms. The cost of his rent would consume 50 per cent or more of his yearly income, a thing which simply can not he done, Mass Work in Lower Party Organizations — * | 1