The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 1, 1934, Page 5

Olgin Greets ‘Trachtenberg On 50th Year Lauds Leading Work In Marxian Publishing| Field in U. S. A. By MOISSAYE J. OLGIN We did not have Marxian litera- ture in America to satisfy the de- mands of the modern labor move- ment before the International Pub- lishers was organized. We now have such literature. The Inter- national Publishers is the major achievement of Comrade Trachten- berg whose fiftieth birthday we are celebrating today. There were the publications of Kerr (Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chi- cago), but outside of Marx's “Cap- i ital” hardly any of the Marxian } classics published by Kerr could be | used. For one thing, the transla- tions were mostly inadequate. Be- sides, the editors had made a habit of deleting from the works of Marx and Engels such passages and whole sections as did not meet with the approval of reformism. The Marx and Engels that emerged from the hands of the American “Socialist” editors were often far from the original. As to the works of Lenin, here the situation was not much better. The Lenin translations cur- | rent in America before 1924 had ] been made in a haphazard way, without due respect to the text, quite often without a sufficient knowledge of Russian, very often with omissions and distortions. Tremendous Work } As one who was fortunate enough to have worked with Comrade ‘Trachtenberg over some of the In- ternational Publishers books, espe- cially Lenin, the writer can testify to the overwhleming amount of work Comrade Trachtenberg has | put into these publications. It is really hard to say what position Comrade Trachtenberg occupies in the International. He is known to be the “chief.” That means that he is everything, from manager and organizer to the one who discusses with the translators every detail of | their work and who personally goes over the translations more than) once, never okaying a manuscript before he is convinced that it is as nearly flawless as humanly pos- sible. Is indefatigable Comrade Trachtenberg is inde- fatigable in inventing ever new means of popularizing Marxist- Leninist literature in America. He published “Voices of Revolt.” He published a series on the American industries. He embarked upon pamphlets. The series of pam- phiets published in the last few years by the International is in it- self a library every class conscious reader will wish to possess. Not the least of Comrade Trachtenberg’s vontures was the publication of Stalin’s “Foundation of Leninism,” a@ book of 125 pages, at the almost! unbelievable price of ten cents. Thir cculd be achieved only because Comrade Trachtenberg intends to sell 100,000 copies of this edition. 4S an expert publisher, Comrade Trachtenberg has influenced all other left-wing publications. It can be said with full assurance that if; the publishing and the sale of revo- lutionary books, magazines and pamphlets has enormously in- creased, this is to a large extent ‘ due to the untiring efforts of Com- rade Trachtenberg. This, however, is only part of Comrade Trachienberg’s work. Comrade Trachtenberg is one of the leaders of the left-wing cultural front. There is hardly a John Reed } Club in this country which has not experienced the influence of Com-; ij rade Trachtenberg. By correspond- erfte and by personal contact he has helped shape the policies of our cultural organizations, encouraging, stimulating, advising, directing. A Cultural Representative If I had to define Comrade Trach- | 4 tenberg’s role outside of managing the International Publishers—which is more than a man’s job—I would say that he is the cultural repre- + sentative of the Communist move- ment among the mass organiza- j tions of the left front. But such 7 is the nature of Communist work $ that you cannot separate the cul- i tural front from all other fronts | of struggle. This is why Comrade Trachtenberg is actually engaged | in every phase of the struggle of the working class. Comrade Trachtenberg is an American Marxist, He took his Marxism seriously even when he still was a member of the Socialist Party, absorted in the Rand School and in the S. P. publications. This is why he could not stay in the Socialist Party where Marxism has been degraded, debased, robbed of its revolutionary contents. He had to go over to the Communist Party which holds aloft the banner of is one of the Communist leaders who manifests a particular interest as to what revolutionary traditions we could inherit from the old 8. P., Particularly to the revolutionary tradition of Eugene Debs. The im- pression is gained that Debs “be- longs” to Trachtenberg. As if he had taken him over from the So- cialist party and brought him to tho younger generation of Commu- nist workers in order that they may find inspiration in the life of this splendid fighter and realize more clearly that the Socialist Party of today is betraying the best there is in its past. Alcnander Trachtenberg can look back upon a great amount of work that loves to look back. At fifty he is full of energy, vigor and youthfulness. He works untiringly. He looks ahead—to more work and greater achievements. t For himself, I know, he would wish no better tribute than a wider distribution of Marxist-Leninist- Stalinist literature among the mass- es. I make the motion that all comrades and friends of the move- ment who wish to express their birthday, should do so by laying the foundation of a Marxian library in thei: home and by purchasing for mental is carrying through in the trade unions every phase of the present Marxism, Comrade Trachtenberg} accelerated drive of the Roosevelt government on the standard of liv- ing of the workers. President Rosevelt has stepped for- putting over wage cuts, in attacs- ing the unions and their right to srike, in cutting down unemploy- ment relief, and giving the em- ployers and their company unions a free hand in the anti-labor drive. What is the position of President William Green of the A. F. of L. on_these issues? policy Green has carried out the pe the htt In ieee 4 e has catried out every phase o: accomplished. But he is not a M2N the employers’ program for cutting wages, strengthening the company unions, preventing sttikes, length- ening hours and cutting unemploy- ment relief. which the A. F. of L. leadership opetates was stated by Green in monthly organ of the A. F. of L. officialdom. j recoznition of Comrade Trachten-)@nd employers are properly part- berg on the occasion of his fiftieth |nets functions but with interdevendent interests which can can best be furthered by genuine co-overation this purpose at least one funda-jfor production and for that ccn- Marxian book. | (BASED ON SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION BY POLITICAL BUREAU, C. P., U.S.A.) . . . 1. The results of the elections show that the growing radicalization of the masses, which is as- suming the character of a growing revolutionary upsurge, still continues to express itself chiefly in strike struggles of the nature of class war (mari- time strike, San Francisco General Strike, National Textile Strike); in the resurgence of unemployed struggles; in the struggles of the Negro toilers for equal rights; in the growing desire for united ac- tion against the menace of war and fascism. In the election results this radicalization process has found little conscious expression. The general increase in the Communist Party vote (with the ex- ception of Minnesota and Connecticut where it de- clined) is highly significant as an indication of the great possibilities of making this radicalization find a fuller expression also on the election field. But thus far the overwhelming masses are still giving their support to the two old capitalist parties, espe- cially the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, while at the same time there is growing evidence (vote for the third party candidates) that the traditional two party system is being shaken. To this estimate must be added the fact that, aside from the increased abstention of eligible voters in this election, mil- lions of toilers were disfranchised because of non- citizenship, denial of vote to Negro massés in the South, youth, etc., as in all previous elections. In addition, large sections of unemployed were dis- franchised this year through forced migration, in- ability to pay poll tax, etc. Among these exploited and disfranchised masses unquestionably a larger proportion than among the mass of the voters were already opposed to the Roosevelt “new deal.” 2. A superficial view of the results of the elec- tions would indicate that the voters have have given an overwhelming endorsement of the Roose- velt “New Deal” policies. To understand the mean- ing of the election results we must, however, at once bear in mind the two-fold character of the “New Deal,” namely the class nature of the Roose- velt policies carried through in the interests of finance capital, and the heavy coat of left dema- gogy and security promises with which Roosevelt tries to cover up the “New Deal” policies. The Roosevelt government and the ruling class, whose interests it represents, are already developing with greater cynicism and speed the attack on the living standards of the workers immediately fol- lowing the elections. This whole attack now is be- ing carried through under the slogan of “recovery before reform,” through which they hope to foil the masses into believing that the crisis can be solved in the interests of the masses on the basis of greater “temporary sacrifices” on the part of the masses. This represents nothing more than the general policy of the capitalists to try to get out of the crisis at the expense of the workers. The Roosevelt government having carried through the election fraud on the masses now feels more secure in its position to attack the masses, although accompanied by new demagogy which must be exposed. But a careful analysis of the élec- tion results will indicate that such attacks will be met with the greatest resistance on the part of the very same masses who voted for the Roosevelt “New Deal” candidates, because they did not yet understand the class nature of the “New Deal” and were still fooled. by the Roosevelt promises and demagogy. 3. The central questions are: (a) why did the great masses still vote for Roosevelt and (b) why did the Communist Party not gain a larger vote in the face of the undoudted radicalization and the growing influence of the Party in the daily mass struggles. The answer is to be found in: a) the specific characteristics of the election man2uvers of American monopoly capital and the two party sys- tem, and the assisting role of the A. F. of L. bu- reaucracy and Socialist Party reformism; b) the still existing lack of Bolshevik mass work on the part of the Communist Party organizations, espe- cially in the factories and unions; c) the weak- nesses and errors during the election campaign. 4. The election maneuvers of the monopolies to put across the class line of the American bourgeoisie (to save capitalism by a capitalist way out of the crisis through more rapid fascization and war preparation) aimed to achieve the following results: a) to strengthen the government machinery for further attacks upon the standards of the masses, a faster tempo of fascization and war preparations. b) to prevent a large increase in the Commu- nist vote. ¢) to check the crystallization of a “third party” in order to maintain the “two-party” system. 5. The results of the elections show that the ma- neuvers of monopoly capital though largely suc- cessful are net fully so, and that these successes are bound to prove temporary. The large vote for Roosevelt, occurring in mid-term contrary to the DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1934 THE RESULTS AND LESSONS AN EDI monopolies with Roosevelt, apparently strengthens the governmental machine for the carrying out of the program of the monopolies formulated by the Liberty League, Durable Goods Committee, Cham- bers of Commerce, Bankers Association, etc. But the very huge vote for Roosevelt given him by the masses under the impression that he will cham- pion their interests will now, when he more openly develops his policies, drive these masses to the realization of the fraud carried through and accel- erate the break away from Roosevelt, provfded our Party is able to expose the new demagogy accom- panying the increasing attacks on the masses, and develop broad united actions of the masses. . . . 'HE huge Roosevelt vote does not constitute on the part of the wide masses approval of the “New the part of the wide masses approval of the “New Deal” attack on the masses. On the contrary, the vote was obtained through: a) illusions that the “New De-*” will abolish the crisis and bring imme- diate relief; b) because masses who already were skeptical with the “New Deal” or impatient, refused to go back to the old way by voting for the Re- publican Party, since they conceived of “practical politics” only through the two old parties; c) through tremendous mass demagogy and promises and fraud, aided by the attacks of the “New Deal” as radical, carried on by the old guard, Republicans; d) through the use of the bureaucratic machine, control of relief funds, etc. The dispirited manner, the manifest lack of mass enthusiasm for and faith in the newest “left” demagogy of the “New Deal,” which accompanied the casting of the mass vote for Roosevelt, the greater increase in abstentions from voting of those eligible to vote is already showing a weakening of the “New Deal” illusions; and the inevitable fresh collisions of the masses (the maturing strikes in the basic industries, unemployed struggles, farmer move- ments, Negro movements) with the “New Deal” in the coming months, make it reasonably certain that, far from being checked by Roosevelt's victory, the growth of the revolutionary upsurge will receive new impetus from thé unfolding capitalist offen- sive, which becomes emboldened by the results of the elections. In view of this, the strengthening of the government machine cannot but prove short- lived. 6. No new third bourgeois party has arisen na- tionally in these elections. But the situation by states is checkered. In Minnesota, the FP. L. Pj though with a reduced majority, has maintained itself as the major party. In Wisconsin, the La- Follette Progressive Party established itself. In California, Sinclair's EPIC movement was in reality a “third” party movement, only technically part of the national Democratic Party, and the over 800,000 votes cast for Sinclair indicate the advanced stage of the process of political realign- ment in that state. In Oregon and Washington we have similar developments, This shows that the “two-party” system is cracking and that the proc- ess of political realignment, aided by the defeat of the Republican Party (which, however, must not underestimated—13 million votes were cast for the Republican Party) is bound to become more accéler- ated by the general sharpening of the class struggle. More and more it will be impossible to fool the masses, to keep them chained to capitalism through the “two-party system.” Undoubtedly the bour- geoisie and its agents will try to trap the masses and keep them chained to capitalism through a “third” capitalist party. Our Party must be aware of this growing danger and on the alert, exposing this danger, every maneuver in this direction, and crystallize the motion of the masses in the direction of independent class political action, in support of the Communist Party and its united front program. ‘7. The Communist vote in all states registered a significant rise, (though relatively small) with the exception of certain cities in Minnesota and Bridge- port, Conn, Not even the very effective Sinclair demagogy, insufficiently combatted by us, which well nigh annihilated the Social Party vote for Governor in California, could prevent a rise in the Communist Party vote. In this, the leading role of the Communist Party in the maritime and genéral strikes found a direct but partial expression. In Minnesota and Bridgeport the general laxity in the unfolding of daily mass struggles by the Communist Party organizations, inability to expose correctly the reformist role and governmental records of the Socialist Party and Farmer-Labor Party whose good chances of winning the elections (especially the Farmer-Labor Party) strengthened the illusions of the masses. . . . E of the difficulties confronting the Commu- nist Party in these elections, which was very in- sufficiently attacked (although formulated by the Central Committee of the Party) was the mood of the more advanced sections of the masses (the radicalized masses who wage a class war in strikes) to fall for the reformist panaceas. Some of these masses even voted for the Democrats only for fear that Republicans may be elected (Pa. mining TORIAL towns), other sections voted for the “progressive” parties’ candidates as being “better” than the Democrats; in California they voted for Sinclair's EPIC, first in the Democratic primaries to stave off the “old guard” Democrats, and next in the elections to stave off Merriam. The huge votes for third party candidates where they presented them- selves to the masses is a definite indication of both of the weakening of the two party system, as well as the beginnings of mass disillusionment in Roose- velt, which the bourgeoisie is trying to stem through these new third party illusions. Moved by the desire to secure immediate relief from the intolerable misery, still doubtful of the election chances of the Communist Party candidates, and in the mistaken belief that the “successful” “left” bourgeois candi- dates will do something for them, large masses have given their votes to such candidates. The A. F. of L. non-partisan policy, which in these elections was fully mobilized in support of Roosevelt and “New Deal” candidates; and Socialist Party reformism, which cultivates the illusions of bourgeois demo- eracy, which everywhere paves the way for fascism, the Socialist Party reformism which produced the Sinclair EPIC—these contributed a large share, especially the A. F. of L. non-partisan policy prac- tised also by many Socialist Party trade union burocrats, in obstructing the expression in the elections of the growing radicalization of the masses. Poor work in the A. F. of L. unions and among the toiling farmers and their mass organizations, upon which the Farmér-Labor Party rests, is an addi- tional reason in Minnesota where opportunist capit- ulations to Farmer-Labor Party influences mani+ fested themselves in few points. 8. The increase of the Communist vote which in a number of industrial towns and election dis- tricts in big cities showed a marked increase for the first time equaling or excelling the vote of the Socialist Party, is directly traceable to our correct revolutionary work along the lines laid down in the Open Letter. At the same time the weaknesses which led to a decline of our vote in Bridgeport and certain cities in Minnesota express a general weakness which found especially expression here be- cause of the relatively greater activity of the re- formists, ‘These weaknesses, which are, of course, inter- related, express: a) General fundamental weaknesses as indi- cated in the Open Letter, b) Special weaknesses arising from the ap- proach to and conduct of the parliamentary strug- gle. 9. On the fundamental weakness of the still existing lack of Bolshevik mass work. It is neces- sary, proceeding from the Open Letter and the Resolutions of the 8th Party Convention, to point out the following: a) Still relatively weak position of revolu- tionary work in the trade unions, despite recent progress; the tardy, slow manner in which the Party organizations took up the major task of revolutionary work in such unions of the A. F. of L. as in Mining, Steel, Textile, Automobile, Marine, Longshore, Railroad and Steel, b Continued neglect to politicalize the eco- nomic struggles of the workers, the inability, in many instances, to raise these struggles to higher levels and to bring forth the-C.P. as the political party of the American proletariat and leader of all exploited. Experience shows what should be well known to every Communist that the masses by themselves even as a result of the sharpest economic struggles do not arrive to a full under- standing of the correctness and need of the Party program. This can be achieved only if on the basis of these struggles, the masses are con+ sciously guided and developed. This continues to go hand in hand with the inability to concretize the general political slogans of the Party to con- ditions of various localities and situations. The slogans of the Party for the struggle against fas- cization and war, with the central slogan for Soviet Power, as a rule, are not sufficiently linked up with the daily mass work in the economic struggles or they are presented as something separate and detached from these struggles. c) The tactic of the united front is still not being applied with the necessary persistence and flexibility. Here we point especially to our lack of readiness to extend the united front locally also to the election field (with local unions, S.P., etc.), particularly in industrial communities in mining, textile, steel, etc. da) Despite certain undoubted progress, the still existing weakness of the Party organizations in the concentration points, lack of systematic and correct Party recruiting and Party building. As a rule, where the Party grows, so does its influence register in the elections. e) Insufficient and not always effective ex- posure of the non-partisan policy of the A. F. of L, bureaucracy, S.P. and F.L.P. reformism as the handmaids of the “New Deal,” and lack of wide- spread agitation for independent working class OF THE ELECTIONS political action, in alliance with the t ers, and for mass break-aways frot parties. 10. On the special weaknesses and errors of the election campaign: a) While the class line of the prol struggle against fascization and war as to the revolutionary way out of the crisis), as embodied in the election program of the C.P., was on the whole correctly presented to the masses, the “New Deal,” as well as the Republican ma- neuvers, were insufficiently exposed, and the ef- fectiveness of this presentation was weakened by several main shortcomings in the election work. The election struggle was very insufficiently brought into the factories, unions (especially A. F. | of L.), and other mass organizations of workers, | Negroes and toiling farmers, The election strug- gle of our local organizations was not sufficiently concrete, little utilization of local struggles (relief, | strikes, Negro rights, terror, etc.) and exposure of the individual opposing candidates in the vari- | ous localities, | b) The very slow unfolding of the election struggle, locally and nationally, also in the Daily Worker, due mainly to a certain degree of under- estimation of the importance of these elections also from a national point of view. Such under- estimation was even expressed in some states fail- ing to take full measures to secure the Party place on the ballot. In Illinois, by failing to se more signatures, we made it easier for the gov- ernment to rule us off the ballot, although we did secure 2,000 more than the required number, In | Rhode Island the required number was not col- lected, c) The already indicated lack of readiness to extend the local united fronts also to the elec- tions in certain communities, while retaining the full political and organizational independence of the Communist Party. d) Great insufficiency in the exposure of the Olsons, LaFollettes, EPIC, Utopia, Huey Long demagogy, ete., and similar movements which are a reflection of great ferment of the masses, the inability to control this ferment through the two- party system and the preparations of fascist and semi-fascist organizations and movements for the suppression of the growing class battles. e) Special attention was lacking nationally to | utilize the Scottsboro case, the developing move- | ments for Negro rights. 11. The September 1934, meeting of the Cen- tral Committee of the C.P. clearly formulated the perspective of the growing revolutionary upsurge which in the elections as yet directly found little reflection. The tasks therefrom can be summed | up in the proposition: More Intensive Realization | of the Measures of the Open Letter. Specifically, | further unfolding of the strike struggles—a major | task: the more intensive organization of the re- | surgent unemployed struggles, the struggles of the | toiling farmers and of the Negroes. Proceeding | from the immediate economic demands of the | workers, we must especially concentrate on the Politicalization of these struggles, bringing forth | the C.P. as the political party of the working class. | The slogan of independent working class political | action, in alliance with the toiling farmers, for | mass break-aways from the bourgeois parties, must always be in the foheground in our mass work. The united front, especially in the industrial towns, must be extended to include the struggle in local elections to embrace the unions, the S.P. locals, | and mass organizations generally on the basis and | continuation of united front for daily struggles | for basic and immediate economic and political | needs of the masses, We must expose the fraud- | ulent moves of sections of the reformist A, F. of L. | Page 5 ‘Trachtenberg 'Greeted by CP ‘Of District 16 | Bureau Pledges to Raise Theoretical Level of Membershin CHARLOTTE, N. C., Nov. 30m District 16 of the Communist Party |through the district bureau sent |revolutionary greetings to Comrade Alexander Tratchenberg on the oc- |casion of his 50th birthday, and | Pledged themselves to utilize the oc- jcasion to increase the distribution jof revolutionary literature and raise the th tical level of the entire membership. The greetings follow: “The District Bureau of District 16 sends revolutionary greetings to Comrade Jexander Trachtenberg on the occasion of his fiftieth birth- day. We regret that because of the distance the members of our Dis- trict cannot be present at the ban- quet to extend greetings personally to one of the outstanding Bolshe- viks of the country—one who, in thirty years of service to the move- ment, has done much in laying the foundation and helping to build our Communist Party. “Our District will use the fiftieth anniversary of Comrade Tratchten- berg as an occasion for more inten- sive efforts to increase the circula- tion of revolutionary literature, to raise the theoretical level of our membership.” Musteites and Trotzkyites Get Together The Trotakyite and the Musteite fragments began a joint meeting yesterday to go through the job of amalgamation. Although there was much talk by both groups about the necessity of ratification by their individual meetings, there seems little doubt that the details were worked out before the formality of the amalgamation meeting. The Trotzkyites, who for years have been shrieking about their being “Leninists-Bolshevists,” have | agreed to give up their identity and the label of “communism.” The Trotzkyites have also agreed to take over the nationalist slogans of the Musteites who never speak of Communism but only of a “Marxism” that is “American” and not the international revolutionary movement of Marx and Lenin. In turn, despite the desire of the Mus- teite rank and file to defend the Soviet Union, Muste has willingly accepted the counter-revolutionary doctrines of the Trotzkyites. The current issue of Labor Action, the organ of the Musteites, calls for the building of “the New Party and the New International.” This is the Trotzkyite slogan of the “Fourth International,” put forward in op- position to the revolutionary activ- ity of the Communist International, The details of the “amalgamation” jof the two groups, and the counter- bureaucracy, jointly with the S.P. bureaucrats, to |revolutionary character of the pro- present their top combination for collaboration with | the “New Deal” as a “Labor Party” of independent | action. More than before it is necessary to fight | the dangers of Farmer-Laborism along the lines | analyzed in the Open Letter. The effectiveness of | all this work depends, in the first instance, upon | the successful building of the Party in the concen- tration points and in a radical and rapid improve- ment of our trade union work along the lines of the recent decisions of the Polburo, 12, All Party organizations should immediately carry through a thorough examination of the elec- tion results in their localities and especially the work of the Party in the elections. These examina- tions, experiences, lessons, will help us to under- stand and solve the problems confronting the Party especially in developing the proper slogans and gram, will be dealt with fully in future issues of the “Daily.” to fight against the employers’ wage cut drive, He has publicly accepted the proposals of the Roosevelt gov- ernment that building wages be cut. After Secretary of the Interior Ickes made his recent statement that building construction workers must accept a wage cut, and sugar coated the pill by deciaring they |will receive more work, Green, in= |stead of sending out a clarion call for a fight against this wage cut proposal, assured the Roosevelt gov- ernment that the plan will be given “fair consideration.” Green, by his methods for the acceleration of the process of jreceptivencss to this wage cut pros breaking the workers away from the capitalist | parties and lead them on the road of independent Political action. In subsequent editorials we shall treat with this question more fully. The discussion of the results of the elections must serve to at once begin systematic preparations for the local spring elections which will take place in many states. Helps William Green Carries Out Roosevelt’s New Anti-Labor Moves; Employers Cut Relief, Reduce Wages and Break Strikes By Carl Reeve Execuive Council of the American Federation of Labor | says. ployers. The Especially, since the election, ward more openly as the direct Tepresentative of the bankers in ties. On basic questions of trade union “Class Co-operation” The funSamental principle on struggle. the November Federationist, “We hold that lebor industry, m With separate trol of industry that will bring balance in distribution of income and stability in production,” Green To this policy of “co-operation of the classes” can be traced all of Green's acts on behalf of the em- class. collaboration Policy, the attempt to make the workers believe that their interests are the same as thost of the bank- ers and factory owners, is the basis for all of Green’s anti-labor activi- The A. F. of L. leadership at its recent convention in San Fraricisco, as formerly, tried to hide from the members the fact that their inter- ests are just the opposite to those of their employers—that the em- ployers, governed only by greed for profits, seek to pay as low wages as possible, speed-up work as much as possible, and enforce as long hours as possible. site side it is to the interests of the workers to get as much wages as they can, to shorten hours, and reduce the speed-up. The policy of Green is the employers’ program of class co-operation, whereas it is to the interests of the workers to fight for their demands and rights, to operate on a policy of class A No-Strike Policy The employers’ program is now being carried through under the slogan of “industrial peace,” of a no-strike truce, as put forward by Rocsevelt in his Sept. speech. William Green has ac- cepted this bankers’ slogan as his manufacturers’ association, Green opposes strikes unless forced to call them by the rank and file. He spoke on Oct. 1 in the A, F. of L. con- vention welcoming Roosevelt's no- strike proposals. Green, as in his attack on the San Francisco strike, has many times spoken against all sympathetic and general strikes. He spoke in the A. F. of L. of strikes “as a last resort.” True to the employers’ needs, Green advocates at all times “com- pulsory arbitration” and puts for- ward work within government boards rather than a fight of the workers for their demands. Green, co-founder with Roosevelt of the N. R. A, champions the arbitra- tion of N. R. A. boards which he helped to create, rather than any struggle. Green said on Nov. 25, in a speech in Akron, “The national recovery act provides for the co- operation between the government, industry and labor, the govern- ment to develop within its power, its scope and its authority, indus- trial codes of fair practice, and in- dustry to be subject to the mini- mum requirements of these indus- trial codes of fair practice, but un- der separate control, with a mini- mum of government supervision.” Green adds, “Nor have we at- tempted through our organizing ef- forts to interfere with the admin- istration of these industrial codes of feir practice by the industry itself.” The whole compulsory arbitra- On the oppo- 30. radio approved by Green, who helped create it. Green openly approves the running of the codes by the employers themselves. Not only that, but the recent sharpened attacks of the employ- ers and the Roosevelt government on the workers are specifically ap- proved by Green. The Chamber of Commerce, the bankers, and all the employers’ associations, set up the cry, “Less government super- vision.” They want to speed-up the drive against the workers’ liv- ing standards. Roosevelt floods the N.R.A. apparatus with direct repre- sentatives of the bankers, such as Moffet and S. Clay Williams. The employers and the N.R.A, officials decide to separate the features of the N.R.A. which aid monopoly (fair trade practices, etc.) from the Jabor provisions, so as to make it jeasier to hammer down the workers’ living conditions. And Green echoes, “under separate control with a minimum of government super- vision.” He assures the employers that he does not object to their administering their own codes. What Form of “Protest” Green said further in his Akron speech, “It is necessary for us and industry itself (the employers— |C.R.) to unite and cooperate, elimi- take? a few “bad” are maintained. influences that have hampered in- dustry in its steady growth.” Green shere offers to compete with the com- \Pany unions in aiding the employ- lers to speed-up the workers and not workers, \ ables” pete with foreign textile mills and |clares that less money must be spent Speed up production. In his Akron speech, before the rubber workers, Green “protested” against attacks of the employers. But what form did this “protest” It took the form of high praise of the National Labor Rela- tiuns Board of the government which itself has superintended the growth of the company unions. He told the workers to “protest” against employers not by strike, but in the National Labor Board. Green urged them to fight it out in the courts. His policy is once more that of interminable de- lay, while illusions in the govern- ment boards which are putting over the wage cut, company union drive, Green On Unemployment As a demagogic basis for drastic relief cuts and denial of unemploy- ment insurance, Roosevelt and the employers associations have put for- ward a barrage of propaganda for “Jess government spending,” “balancing the budget.” They have put forward the demagogic argu- ment that the only road to recovery is to allow the employers more in- iitfative to increase profits. This is jnate the unfair practices, take the argument put forward for the out of industry those demoralizing Federal Housing Act, which aids bankers and property owners but for cuts housing appropriations, leans and gifts of R.F.C. to bankers, at the same time that unemploy- make more profits. His speech is in ment relief is cut, and “unemploy- } own. In common with the U. S. ition, no-strike, employer-controlled |line with Francis Gorman’s offer to Chamber of Commerce and the 'set-up is thus on relief and relief is a “state ana posal, which is the opening gun in |the attempt to drive wages down in all industries, assured big business that he can be relied on to carry |through this phase of the govern- |ment’s anti-labor drive. He said not @ word against the fact that Hop- |kins has abolished the minimum wage of thirty cents an hour on work relief, which tends to force down all wages, Green, in his general demagogio statements, calls for the thirty hour week “without loss in the earnings of the workers.” But more concrete= ly, Green supports the Black-Cone jmery bill, which provides for the jthirty-hour week without any ine crease in pay—in other words, a idrastic cut in the earnings of the jworkers. Thus Green in practice is :@ supporter of the drive of the em- |ployers and Roosevelt to prevent the local” problem. The Roosevelt gov- ernment opposes the “dole” and unemployment insurance, identical position as the employers. “To increase production and to de- velop new employment opportunities ,are the only ways to relieve unem: ployment,” Green says in the No: ;Vember Federationist. “The only ,8afe program is to mobilize all ef- forts to get normal business operat- ‘ing to capacity... .” This is the bankers program, Roosevelt's program, of dodging the responsibility of the employers and the government for payment of un- employment relief and insurance. Green, in practice, carries out con- cretely the employers’ program. At the A. F. of L. convention, Green opposed any form of federal junemployment insurance, and took the same stand that Roosevelt took at his recent Security Conference, for serves” laws which do not apply to the unemployed and are unsatis- factory even for the part «time Green has remained silent regard- ing the present relief cuts and done jabsolutely nothing to organize the trade unions for a fight for ade- quate relief. He fights bittcriy to- gether with the employers against the Workers Unemployment and So- ‘cial Insurance Bill, the only bill which applies to all unemployed. William Green has not only not in P.W.A. for huge are removed from relief rolls. fought against wage cuts nor taken | ernment—which is the the textile employers to help com- Secretary of Commerce Roper de- ‘any steps to rally the trade unions ‘the bankers, i And William Green takes the jthat is, for nothing but state “re- | workers from attaining shorter hours with no loss in pay. | Green demagogically jagainst the company unions. |Greea hails the decision of the Na- |tional Labor Relations Board in the Firestone Rubber Co. case as a “vic- tory,” making no comment on the ‘fact that the Labor Board ruled jthat the company union’s name ;must be printed on the ballot, and \siving the employers’ union equal tights with the real trade union locals. | Green, industry by industry, made |possible the growth of the com- pany unions by preventing strikes jand by agreeing to the setting jup of such compulsory arbitra- ition boards as the steel, auto, textile and marine labor boards. Green took a leading part in creating and supporting these boards which have “arbitrated” in these industries un- til company unions have grown to immense proportions, work has been speeded up, and i many cases, wages cut. speaks But Thus Green has in actuality sup- _ workers, |Ported Roosevelt's wage cut drive, supported Roosevelt’s policy of re- lief cuts and denial of unemploy- ment insurance, aided the growth of the company unions, and sabo- jtaged the fight of labor for the jthirty-hour week without reduction ‘in par. Green, under the Roosevelt {slogan of “industrial peace,” has pushed throuch the whole anti= strike policy of the Roosevelt gov- of ©