The Daily Worker Newspaper, May 31, 1934, Page 6

scp ‘he & Page Six DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, THURSDAY MAY 31, 1934 Daily,.QWorker QRITRAL O8GAN COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A. (SECTION OF COMMUNIST UNTERMATIONALD “America’s Only Working Class Daily Newspaper” FOUNDED 1924 PUBLISHED DAILY, EXCEPT SUNDAY, BY THE COMPRODAILY PUBLISHING CO., IN Street, New York, N. Y. Telephone: ALgonqu: 1 year, $6.00; 0.75 cents year, $9.00; MAY 31, 1934 THURSDAY, Welcome, Sailors! AILORS of the fleet, the Communist Party and the Daily Worker extend to you their heartiest revolutionary greet- ings! You have just arrived from a long series of war maneuvers in the Far East, through the Panama Canal and in the Caribbean Sea. You know at first-hand something of the far-flung r plans of the Wall Street gov- ernment, that decides how and when the fleet shall be used to protect its investments, the plunder of the rich in this country, and to grab new colonies You land at a time wh tremendous strike struggles are going on throughout this country. We know that you get many letters from home telling what the N.R.A. is doing to workers’ pay envelopes. Many of your fathers, brothers, or womenfolk have been engaged in strike struggles, and have felt the cruel, savage terror of the bosses. Perhaps some of you have friends or relatives in Toledo, Ohio, where the militia was used against strikers, shooting down many, killing two. Our newspaper, the only working class daily paper in the country, has been watching and fol- lowing the maneuvers of the fleet, because we have been vitally concerned in reporting to the workers , 50 E, 13th | what the bosses were doing in preparing for war. Now you are here! And we extend to you our warmest greetings. We bring you the greetings of Communists «nd mi rs in every part of the country, from the str fronts, from the coal and iron miners of Alabama, from the militant longshoremen, and the Toledo auto-parts strikers. | E FEEL, sailors, that you, as members of our class in the armed forces of the exploiters, of the government of the capitalists, you will be vitally interested in reading the reports of the strike strug- gles in the Daily Worker. We urge you to read our paper while ashore. More than that. We would like to hear from you. Drop us a line about conditions in the fleet. Tell us what the men are thinking about in the event of a new imperialist war. There is no doubt that while’ ashore the capi- talist press will try to flatter you. These sheets will be filled with praise of the sailors. They will try to glorify the gobs, and tell you what swell guys you are and how much you are doing for your country. But as a revoluticnary working class news- paper we want to remind you about the same line they pulled on the boys they sent over to the trenches in France to pile up millions for Mr. Mor- gan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Ford, and their kind. Those boys by the hundreds of thousands, who were praised and patted on the back, are now starving. When they ask for a bonus they are shot down. Don’t fall for the flag-waving enthusiasm, the blast of patriotic flapdoodle they will fling into your face. They want to keep you filled with their bunk so that you will be good cannon fodder when the time comes for your ships to go into action to pile up more wealth for the capitalists here who starve your mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Every effort will be made to divert your mind from some of the things you ought to know. We know you have put in hard and long work training and getting ready for war. You need a rest and some relaxation. You have been looking forward to this leave for some time. Why not get in touch with our headquarters? You will find in the Daily Worker every day the meetings and affairs that the revolutionary and militant workers, and trade union members, are giving in this city every day you are on land. Get in touch with us at these meetings. Sailors, we welcome you! The Gov’t Courts OK the Weirton Steel Corp. IHE cover has been taken off another N.R.A. “arbitration” trap. Backing up the Weirton Steel Corpora- tion to the hilt, the Federal District Court has just decided that the Weirton Steel employers can do any damn thing they please with company unions, wages, hours, etc., all the Roosevelt-N.R.A. ballyhoo notwith- standing. That’s what the steel workers of Weirton get for their “patience” since last October when they decided to put their trust in the government “arbi- tration.” And the bitter irony of the whole business is that the strikebreaking Weirton decision is based on the so-called “anti-injunction” bill introduced by the “liberals” Senator Norris and Representa- tive LaGuardia, now Mayor of New York, Hailed by liberals and the A. F. of L. leadership, it now turns out, like all “liberal” labor legislation, a weapon against the workers. The capitalist papers pretend that the Weirton decision is a setback for the N.R.A. That's a fraud. The N.R.A. and the courts are all part of the same governmental machine, the Roosevelt Wall Street machine. The Federal courts are only another wing of the Roosevelt government. The courts do what they are told to do by their masters, the factory owners and corporation monopolies. It was just the N.R.A. that was used by Roose- velt to trap the steel workers of Weirton when ey decided to strike for their own union and ter wages. IN OCTOBER the. steel workers could not have won their demands by sticking to their most powerful weapon—the strike weapon. But they were trapped by Roosevelt, by the N.R.A. Labor Board, and by their leaders of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Werkers (A. F. of L.). “Go back to work,” Roosevelt told the men, He promised them their own union, better wages, ete. Taking up this ery, the union leaders called off the strike just at the time when the men could have won it. “The N.R.A. and the govern- ment will take care of us,” the leaders told the men. All the government pressure was not against the Weirton Steel but against the men. And the men waited, and waited and waited for a “decision.” Now they’ve got the “decision”—a strikebreaking decision. Roosevelt now stands ex- posed as the leading strikebreaker in the Weirton strike. And the latest development is that the N.R.A. will “appeal” the case—and that will take probably until way past June, 1935, when the N.R.A. expires! And then there will be still another “appeal!” Meanwhile the steel workers will be getting it in the neck from the Weirton Steel Company. At least, that is the Roosevelt plan. * . . HE Weirton Steel decision, coming as it does after the Minneapolis “time” sellout, should be a timely warning to the strikers at Toledo, particularly, to watch like hawks against this N.R.A. “arbitration” trap. The N.R.A. “arbitration” is poison for the workers. It hog-ties them so that their enemies can stall for time and get over strikebreaking blows. Not in the Roosevelt-Wall Street courts—but right out on the picket line! That’s where the decisions on wages and unions must be made. Mass power, picket lines, strike action, that’s the language the empleyers will listen to. And no other! Let the strikers themselves decide on what terms they shall go back to work. Once it gets into the hands of the Courts and the N.R.A. “arbitration,” the men are in a trap. The Weir- ton decision proves that to the hilt. An ‘Objectionable’ Record | O, THE bureaucrats at the head of the New York City Central Trades and Labor Council consider Louis Weinstock’s labor record “objectionable.” On that basis they have informed his local union (Paint- ers, 499) that he is not acceptable as a delegate. Why is Weinstock’s labor record “objectionable” to Secretary Quinn and his fellow bureaucrats? What has Weinstock done which so offends these people? Weinstock is Secretary of the A. F. of L. Rank and File Committee for Unemployment Insurance and Relief. It is his association with this com- mittee which makes him “objectionable.” Bill Green, McGrady, Frayne, Quinn and the rest of the top A. F. of L. leaders vigorously oppose un- employment insurance. The A. F. of L, Rank and File Committee, headed by Weinstock, took up the fight against these leaders and for the Workers’ Unemployment Insurance Bill, H. R. 7598. Hundreds of thousands of A. F. of L. members endorsed this bill despite the open opposition of the A. F. of L. leadership, Over 2,000 A. F. of L. local unions, 28 local cen- tral bodies and 5 state federations of labor (all A. F. of L.) have officially endorsed the bill. It is quite clear then that Weinstock’s labor record is in no sense objectionable to this mass of A. F. of L, members. IT IS ONLY OBJECTIONABLE TO THOSE WHO, TOGETHER WITH THE CAPI- TALISTS, OPPOSE UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR- ANCE. é . . HIS rank and file committee has also carried on a determined struggle against gangster and rack- eteer control of the unions and for the rights of the rank and file members. In thsi fight also the committee and Weinstock are supported by the mass of the A. F. of L. members. This is shown by the growth of the rank and file opposition movement throughout the entire A. F. of L., and specifically by the failure of the fakers of the Painters’ Union in their repeated efforts to expel Weinstock, But of course this militant fight against gang- sters and racketeers is objectionable to these ele- ments, 1. e., to the gangsters and racketeers. That is another reason why Quinn informs Local 499 that Weinstock will not be seated in the Central Trades and Labor Council. Known labor fakers, men like Commerford, Kaplan, Young, Zausner, and dozens of others who have been caught red-handed collecting graft, running non-union shops, ete—they are not ob- jectionable; they are welcomed with open arms by the Ryans, the Quinns and the rest at the C.T.L.C. But Weinstock is objectionable, because he fights against these racketeering gangs, for inner-union democracy, for the rights of the rank and file, for unemployment insurance. * * | Rese 499 is to be commended for its sharp reply to Quinn. Weinstock’s fighting record was again approved by the local; he was again elected as the local’s delegate to the C.T.L.U. The local demanded that he be seated. But this is an issue reaching beyond local 499. It involves the right of all local unions to choose their own representatives. It raises the question: Can Quinn, Ryan and Co. veto regularly elected dele- gates of local unions? The answer must be: NO! Every A. F. of L. local in New York City should give that answer. A. F. of L. members should raise this issue at their next local meeting. Fight for the adoption of a resolution demanding that Weinstock be seated. Demand that the local unions alone, through regu- lar elections, pass on the qualifications of their dele- gates. Biro Bidjan’s Autonomy te SATURDAY, June 2, New York workers will gather in Madison Square Garden to celebrate the historic decree which recently transformed the area of Biro-Bidjan, in the Far Eastern territory of the U.S.S.R., into an autonomous Jew- ish region. This will be an occasion for celebra- tion not only on the part of members of Icor, the Friends of the Soviet Union and other organiza- tions and groups specifically interested in Soviet advance. All anti-fascists who look with hatred upon the Nazi persecution of the Jews should join in this event. And all those who here in America fight for Negro rights and liberation, for the free- dom of all the oppressed national minorities in the United States, should gather at the Garden in mass to demonstrate to the world their own determina- tion to achieve in this country what has been won in the Soviet Union. Now particularly, when the bosses try to separate Negro and white workers in the great tidal wave of strikes throughout the land, when despite this the black and white workers ARE uniting in strug- gle, is it necessary to prove that we realize the world-shaking significance of the new status of Biro-Bidjan. All out to Madison Square Garden on Saturday! (Continued from Page 1) that there were no concrete sug- gestions on any questions whatever there, even no theoretical formulae upon which all delegations could agree. | “In various countries the govern- ments changed and the parties in power changed. The ideology of the parties and governments changed as well as their methods in solving in- ternational problems. Notwithstan- ing the Briand-Kelogg Pact, in all j countries we are witnessing the carrying on of a nationalist policy, by the means of the development of military activities in territories near adjacent states. Other states are not sufficiently strong yet for carry- ing on a similar policy, and are meanwhile limiting themselves to | yerbal and written propaganda of | the idea of expansion and the seiz- ure of foreign lands by means of the armed fist. “The question now is one with regard to such states whose leaders quite openly outlined their program for the seizure of foreign lands. Summing up more than a year’s work of the conference, we must openly say the difficulties are al- ready evident at the beginning. Its life has weakened in the course of time and the difficulties increase with a crescendo which have finally led us to a deadlock.” Secret War Maneuvres Litvinoff further dwelt upon the pourparlers carried on close circles of certain countries which also led to no agreements. “We are fully aware,” he said “of the statements of certain states—and by no means small, no by any means suffering from a surplus love for peace—that they will never agree to any means of reduction of armaments, display< ing thereby their decided aggressive- ness. Such statements are sufficient in order to register the complete failure in so far as this concerns disarmament.” Litvinoff then continued: “Per- haps there may be some delegations ready to propose that they would be satisfied with half measures, for ex- ample, and once again confirm that what was already accepted as inter- national obligations such as the pro- hibition of chemical warfare or else once again confirm the non-increase of armament over the present ievel. “But who can believe that such obligations will really be observed by all under present conditions, or that obligations can practically be controlled? “Would it not be politically more honest, courageously and openly to confess that international life, par- ticularly political events of certain countries in the past years, have not allowed the conference to carry out its direct problem of the elabo- ration of a convention of disarma- ment? A Wider Conception “The necessity of ciosing the con- ference itself, logically would nat- urally follow. This would be cor- rect were one to approach the ques- tion from a purely formal or pe- dantic viewpoint, having only the name of the conference in mind. But the Soviet delegation continues to consider it from the wider con- ception of the conference as having its own aim, namely, to realize one of the guarantees of peace by means of disarmament. “Thus, it is a question not of dis- armament, which is only a means, but of guaranteeing peace. The question arises: Could not the con- ference seek out other guarantees of peace or at least increased measures of security for those states not hay- ing any aggressive ideas, not in- terested in war, and which in case of war could be become an object of invasion? One may ask, what guarantees exist that in other ques- tions the conference may be more unanimous than in questions of dis- armament, that the activities of the conference be more fruitful, more successful? “To this I will answer: In order to reduce armaments, to an extent the absolute consent practically of all states is indispensable. In order to realize other measur 's of security unanimity is not necessary. Natur- ally the conferences must do every- thing in order that all countries should adhere to these measures, but even should the centers be found among countries, this should in no way interfere with the remaining countries coming closer together in order to carry out such measures as would increase their own security. “The questions of security are not in the least strangers to the con- ference. The latter was created for such questions, a special political commission which occupied itself with the questions.” Litvinoff further recalled the Soviet proposal concerning the def- inition of aggression. “To further increase the adherence to the Soviet definition of aggression would great- ly ease the carrying out of other proposals suggested at the confer- ence referring to security. New pro- posals can likewise be introduced, for example, proposals concerning such or other sanctions against vio- lators of peace or violators of the Kellogg Pact. “It is possible to establish a scale for/these sanctions not leading to military measures and not applic- able to all states. Various regional pacts of mutual assistance can be added to such more or less universal pacts. It is not a question of mili- tary alliances or the division of states into camps hostile to each other; still less of surrounding any- one. “In measures of security of such kind, the principle of equal rights for all states without exception can arouse neither doubt nor hesitation. Many of us can consider the word “security” as antagonist to disarm- ament. But I find no other ex- pression but that which is implied by the word “security.” “Were we to follow this path then the time and energy spent upon the conference would not be in vain. We would never have to return empty handed to the peoples who sent us here. Maybe the consolidation of security and the influence which would be felt by aggressively in- clined governments, would create such conditions under which it would be possible once again to re- turn to the question of disarma- ments with better success. “I would in no way limit either the time or the task of the con- ference. I propose rather to trans- fer the conference into a permanent — Litvinoff Gives New U. S. S. R. Peace | YOU CAN’T RUN MACHINES WITH BAYONETS! SMe hg organ affording the maximum de- fense of security of all states in the defense of general peace. “I propose to convert the confer- ence, in other words, into a perma- nent, periodically convened peace conference, for averting the danger of war and its heavy consequences. “It must elaborate and extend the perfection of its methods for the consolidation of security and give timely signal for the further danger of war and answer all calls for aid to threaten its states, and render} the latter timely and adequate as- sistance with a moral, economic, fi- nancial or otherwise.” A Separate Body Litvinoff further dwelt upon the fact that it could be said that the League of Nations was obliged to serve this capacity. The League of Nations has too many tasks. It is too much bound up by its status to approach it and arrive at a decision. Too much reglemented, while the tribune of the conference could be} made to be more accessible, more free, more attentive to the needs of the moment. “Let the conference continue to be regarded as an organ of the{ League and be served by it; let it be most closely connected together; | let the League of Nations be un- changed and fully retain its pre- rogatives, “I fully conceive the difficulty of establishing a new international or- ganization completely detached from the League, competing with it. I do not suggest ths in the least. But the very convening of an interna- tional conference of disarmament shows the insufficiency of the scope of the League for such a great task as disarmament, “My proposal suggests even great- er tasks—the permanent defense of peace. I see no other alternative. The Soviet government, not without pride, used the measures of security carried out in the past years as the result of its initiative, particularly in parts of Eastern Europe where it is interested most. By means of pacts defining aggression, and by means of non-aggression pacts and their extension to the maximum terms, the Soviet government and its neighbors strengthened the feel-| ing of security among them. It has‘ thought out new forms of pacts and declarations, which I hope. will be widely accepted in the future—pacts and declarations of powerful states guaranteeing the independence of weaker states situated between or near them. “It is not always that the Soviet government has succeeded in its en- terprises, not always has it found an echo in those states it addressed it- self to, but even in such cases, the Soviet proposal served the cause of peace as they aided to distinguish those regions where violation of peace could be expected. “The Soviet Government is ready to offer its might into larger meas- ures for the defense of general peace. And its cooperation, this or other international enterprise, in this or other international organiza- tion, and brings with it the enor- mous moral force of the ever might- ily growing, one hundred and sev- enty million strong state which has definitely torn itself away from the fact of military annexation, and which during the course of the six- teen years of its existence, has given ample proofs of its sincere love of peace,” (Continued from Page 1) torship, particularly in recent times, a number of successes of enormous international signifi- cance, “The Soviet Union is able \to pursue a consistent peace policy because the proletariat over an enormous territory has abolished all the causes that led to imperial- ist wars. In the Soviet Union there is no lack of markets; the Soviet union does not have to hunt for markets. “The dictatorship of the proleta- riat, which represents the vital in- terests of the overwhelming ma- jority of the population of the country, is not threatened from within and therefore does not have to seek safety in wars. “The might of the Soviet Union has rapidly grown and is continu- ing to grow day after day. Such and only such a country can pur- sue a firm and consistent peace policy.” Litvinoff, in this stage of im- perialist antagonisms, on the eve of a new imperialist world war, points out it is no longer a question only of disarmament, but the “guaran- teeing” of peace. The whole econ- omy of the capitalist powers has been transformed to a war base, and the various capitalist proposals for disarmament, such as those of the U. S. Ambassador-at-large, Nor- man H. Davis, are merely the at- tempts to reshuffle the types of arms best suited to the needs of the va- rious imperialist bandits. Wall Street's Proposals Contrasted to the ciear, bold pro- posals of the Soviet Union, were the vague, deliberately confused and confusing declarations of Norman H. Davis, for the Rooseevit govern- ment. Summed up, Davis’ proposals for Wall Street were: “We are prepared to cooperate in every practicable way in efforts to secure a general peace and progress of the world. We are furthermore willing in connection with @ general disarma- ment convention to negotiate a uni- versal pact of non-aggression and to join with other nations in confer- ring on international problems growing out of any treaties to which we are a party.” Outside of some meaningless pro- posals about limiting “traffic in arms,” Davis's proposals, on his own admission were based on the Hoover maneuvers on disarmament. It was a continuation of the Wall Street policy in the Hoover and previous regimes, and they were aimed to aid the war programs of American im- perialism. Soviet Peace Plans Hit Boss War Moves armament proposals were rejected, and in their place huge war-con- struction programs were adopted. In his speech at the conclusion of his disarmament proposal speech in 1932 Litvinoff forecast this devel- opment, saying: “Before the session began I ex- pressed the conviction that it would not make a single step forward, I was a little mistaken, the result was otherwise: despite even my sceptic- ism, the session has taken quite a number of steps—but backward!” Fascism and War Still more. With the rise of fas- cism in Germany, and the aggres- sively intensified war moves of Japan against the Soviet Union and China, the danger of an armed conflict is a matter of the planned, conscious, immediate objective of these capitalist powers. It is this danger that the Soviet Union, by its peace policy, seeks to hamper and to thwart. Among the practical measures proposed by Litvinoff for peace, very much to the chagrin of the im- perialists who writhe to see their war program so clearly and openly exposed to the masses, were the fol- lowing: Transforming the disarma- ment conference into a permanent body to provide security for states in the defense of the general peace. By “security” Litvinoff points out, he means something quite different than what the imperialists regard as “security.” Just as the Soviet Union has in mind an entirely dif- ferent idea of disarmament from that of the capitalist powers. He proposes practical non-military measures for the defense of peace in the present admitted critical war situation. “I propose to conveyt the con- ference,” declared Litvinoff, “into a permanent, periodically conyened peace conference for averting the danger of war and its heavy con- sequences.” This the imperialist powers do not want, as they do not wish to be hampered by an open conference which would daily give the possi- bility of exposing their war manue- vers. Lastly, Litvinoff showed that be- hind the peace proposals of the Soviet Union was the growing might of the dictatorship of the proletariat, backed by rapidly ad- vancing socialist construction. “The Soviet Union,” he concluded, “brings with it the enormous moral force of the ever-mightily growing 170,000,000-strong state, which has definitely turned itself away from the fact of military annexation, and which during the course of the six- teen years of its existence has given Litvinoff showed in an unanswer- able manner how the Soviet dis- proof of its sincere love for peace.” No wonder the leading imperialist diplomats at the conference are forced to stammer their embarrass- ment at Litvinoff’s proposals. Sir John Simon, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in response to Lit- vinoff’s exposure of the failure of disarmament, could only say that British imperialism had agreed that German fascism should be allowed to rearm on a limited base in ex- change for Hitler's concession that there shall be no disarmament of the heavily armed powers for the first five years of a proposal ten- year convention. That the imperialist governments want the masses quickly to forget Litvinoff’s proposal is crassly ad- mitted by the Geneva correspon- dent to the Herald-Tribune. “The reaction to M. Litvinoff’s| proposals,” he writes, “for a per- manent conference was typified by the coldness of the American del- egation and the remark of a British delegate, speaking only for himself, that ‘Litvinofi’s speech will be for- gotten in four days.’” While the warmaking imperial- ist powers may hope that the working class forgets the Soviet Union’s peace proposals and ac- tions, the Communist Parties throughout the world will continue to bring them to the attention of the toiling population to show how only the revolutionary way can lead to prevention of the imper- ialist wars by the action of the toiling masses themselves in the imperialist countries. The whole foundation of the Soviet Union's peace policy and actions rests on the revolutionary foundation of Marxism-Leninism. As Comrade A. Lunacnarsxy so clearly pointed out in “The So~ viet's Fight for Disarmament”: “The U. S. S. R. with its ideology, the Marxist-Leninist outlook, makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is a mili- tant organization, but the war which is of its very essence takes other forms. It is the war of ciasses, as the result of which toiling humanity must shatter its chains. The best rozd to vic- tory in this war is the enormous peace construction which the great workers’ State is develop- ing throughout all its length and breadth, The creative labor which has led to the economic uplift of the land of workers and peasants is carrying on from vietory to victory over crisis-suf- fering, disintegrating, rotting capitalism. It is that, conse- quently, which enables the So- viet government insistently and boldly to defend the cause of peace.” Proposals by Burck| World Front | On the By HARRY G. ‘ES Some Navy History Britain, Chile, Holland From “Potemkin” to “Aurora’? = | HE fleet's in! Revolution ary greetings to the saile ors! We want to recall some of the stirring struggles of the sailors throughout the world during the present crisis. Do you know that since 1931, there have been three mutinies in capie talist navies? The deeds of the Sailors is one of the brightest beacon lights in working class revolutionary) history, pointing the path for speediest travel. No matter how hard the exploite ers may try to burn out the meme ory of it, neither the British work- ing class, nor the ruling crust will ever forget the Invergordon naval “mutiny.” The proud British navy, where from time immemorial the sailors were supposed to be auto- matons, answering every command with an “Aye Aye Aye, sir!”, where hearing was obeying, was the scene of class action that sent shivers to the very foundations of the Admir- alty. On September 14, 1931, after the British government had ordered wage cuts for the sailors, the men of the fleet, refused to obey orders, The fleet was just preparing for some gigantic war maneuvers. The men held secret meetings in the fo’castle. There wasn’t much ado about it. With tne fewest words the sailors had decided on their tactics, their form of “strike,” or “mutiny” against the wage cuts, against the policies of British imperialism, : Tt was not an uprising, as were the two others about which we shall relate. It was not even strictly a mutiny. The sailors sat around on the decks and smoked their pipes. They mocked the officers to their faces. They whistled and sang the “Red Flag” and the “Internationale.” The officers could do nothing about it, The discipline in the navy had cracked completely. It does not matter that later, when the sailors won a return of their wage cut, the | fleet sailed out, apparently as un- tarnished as ever, with every man doing his “duty.” British imperial- ism now must reckon with this deed, and the sailors will never forget it. It is a forerunner of what the Brit- ish fleet will do when the British proletariat enters into mortal and final combat with its oppressors, Poe weate ORE drastic was the seizure of the entire Chilean fleet by the sailors in 1932. The workers on land had been carrying on a series of the sharpest battles against the Wall Street and British supported native puppet government. The starving unemployed set up barricades. So- viets were formed in some parts of the country. The unrest reached the fleet. Spontaneously, and without detailed, preliminary organization, the rank and file on the ships, with the support of the petty officers, seized command. They put the chief officers in irons, But then, with the fleet in their power, they did not follow up this step. They lacked strongly organized Commu- nist units. They lacked close con- tact and plans for action with the armed workers and peasants on shore. They were at a loss what to do. The workers in the chief ports and industrial centres along the coast were already going into action against the armed forces of the capitalist state; and the well-organ- ized and determined help of the navy might have resulted in the first Soviet power in the Americas. But the sailors did not follow up the logic of their deed. They merely steamed around in circles, refusing to surrender the ships, demanding economic and political concessions, They negotiated with the naval bases on land, offering to sur- render, but only under terms fayor= able to the men. Then the fascist officers who commandeered the air fleet picked out the flag ship of the mutiny and_ began an aerial bom- bardment. The men on the ships did not resist, because they were not ready to go the full way, and did not want to cause unnecessary bloodshed. They finally surrendered, T= most recent mutiny was that of the Dutch armored cruiser “De Zeven Provincien.” The Indonesian sailors together with the white sailors and petty officers seized this cruiser near the Dutch East Indies and steamed away, broadcasting radio messages to the entire fleet to join them in the uprising against Dutch imperialism. Tremendous sympathy was aroused among the entire navy, and the Dutch author- ities had the greatest difficult in finally capturing the mutinous ship, All of these actions are of the greatest importance in the revolu- tionary struggles of the workers everywhere, and are part of the liv- ing history of capitalist navies that every sailor should know about. It must be remembered that the 1905 Revolution in Czarist Russia began with a similar action, the seizure by the sailors of the cruiser “Potem- * kin.” The proletarian revolution in Russia began with the signal from the cruiser “Aurora,” and the sailors of Petrograd played a decisive and brilliant role in winning power for the Soviets. Referring to the naval mutinies that occurred during the capitalist crisis, Comrade D. Z. Manuilsky, in a spcech before the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union said: “Comrades, let us grant that these movements have not yet led to victory. But after all without a ‘Potemkin’ there would have been no ‘Aurora.’ By virtue of these movements the Communist Parties are growing, the broad masses are learning the science of revolution, and they are learning it very quickly, for at the present time in capitalist countries the path that Jeads from the ‘Potemkin’ of 1905 to the ‘Aurora’ of 1917 is being covered much more quickly than was the case in Czarist Russia.” ge ee le a MN Co ees Cee } ' cet as aes j t | |