PART' SAN R EV. EWA Left- Wing Literary Magazine

In the J uly issue:The Soviet Cinema, 1930-1938 by Dwight MacdonaldLewi. Mumford and the Big City by Meyer SchapiroDoatoevaky and Politica by Philip RahvThe Novel. of Thomaa Mann by William TroyMy Father Brought Winter a Story by Mary KingIn the June issue, copies of which are still available:Rosa Luxemburg's Letter. From Pri.onKarl Marx, A Prolet-Play by Edmund Wilson

Special Offir to Readers of Living M arxismSIX ISSUES for $1.

(Regular rate $2.50 a year, 25 cents a copy)

PARTISAN REVIEW22 EAST 17 STREET NEW VORK, N. Y.

NOW in ENGLISH

STATE AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONby J. MARTOV

The answer to Lenin's work: STATE A N D REVOLUTION.Writing in 1918-1919, Martov points out the historie significaneeof the Russian Revolution. He explains the "soviets" as a meansof installing the totalitarian party dictatorship over the pro-letariat.

PRICE 25c

INTERNATIONAL REVIEWP. O. BOX 44, STA. 0, NEW VORK, N. Y.

Roaa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution $ .25Rosa Luxemburg: Marxism or Leninism, . . . . . . . . .. .10The Bourgeois Role of Bolshevism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10The Crisis and Decline of Capitalism .10Yvon: What Has Become of the Rusaian

Revolution .25Proletarian Outlook. Published monthly by the

Proletarian Group, Ne", York .. .05

SUBSCRJBE to LIrïNG MARXJSM -8 ISSUES $1. Order from

COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCEP. O. Box 5343, Chicago, 11I.

__ • -::."7.-z- •.•• -";7 •• ,

~~en Cents

TH E WO ft LU WA ft I N TH E MAK I N GLENIN'S PI..ULOSOPI-IY

GENERAL REMARKS ON THEQUESTION OF ORGANIZATION

A 11MARXIAN" APPROACI-I TO TH EJEWISI-I QUESTION

THE WORKERS' ALLIANCE

11

~1[ ~ ~JlL- ~ ~

I

LIVING MARXISMVol. IV. NOVEMBER 1938

AnnuaI Subscription $1.50 Address:INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE,

No. 5

P. O. Box 6343. Chicago, Illinois.

This magazine. published by the Groups of Council Communists. consciously opposes allforms of sectarianism. The sectarian confuses the interest of his group, whether it is aparty or a union, with the interest of the elaas, lt is our purpose to discover the aetualproletarian tendencies in their backward organizational and theoretica] forms; to effeet adiscussion of them beyond the boundaries of their organizationo and the eurrent dogmatico;to facilitate their fusion into unified action ; and thus to help them achieve real signüicanc •••

The unsigned articles express the views of the publiohera.

T~E WORLD WAR IN T~E MAKINGThe cessation of capital growth means depression conditions. Capitalism

must expand to avoid stagnation and decline. The expansion process becomesincreasingly more imperialistic as the national possibilities become morerestricted. Imperialism means additional profits through the exploitation ofa greater number of workers by fewer capitalists. It means, if successful,better positions in the international scramble for the largest part of the prof-its created by world production ; it means the concentration of capitaion anintern;tional scale; it means the coordination of aU phases of production anddistribution to the profit interests of the most powerful of the capitalistnations and combines. Capitalistic reorganizations toward greater profitabil-ity cannot always be achieved "peacefully", Not even on a national scale,and less so internationally, because this "reorganization" process implies thedestruction of many capitalistic interests. Wars break out in defense of thoseinterests. Like any other capitalism, German capitalism continuously con-flicts with other imperialistic interests in its attempts at capital expansion.The precarious condition of world capitalism, not a particular kind of"German aggressiveness," now intensifies the vigorous attempts of theGerman capitalist system to increase by political-military means its economiestrength.

Czechoslovakia - the Stepping Stone

Czechoslovakia derived its existence as a state from the Versailles treatyand its basic imperialistic setup. The fascist concentration of all economieand political powers in Germany led to new imperialistic action by "extraor-dinary" means. As regards the "ordinary" means, Germany had in the lastsix years managed to influence the Danube countries and the Balkan nations

129

economically and politically to a considerable extent.* lts competmon inthese areas had defeated countries like France, England and America.However, to allow for further advances, capital investments, control over rawmateriais, markets,must be safeguarded by military means, especially when anexisting economie weakness prevents the maintainance of advantageous posi-tions in the long run. An independent Czechoslovakia was a hindrance toGerman expansion in the Balkans and to the East. After the A nschluss** otAustria it was only a question of time till the carefully prepared attack uponCzechoslovakia would be made.

The Czechoslovakian internal situation made it possible for Germany tobegin her attack under advantageous conditions which were further improvedby the diplomatie assistance of England. Czechoslovakia was not a unifiednat ional state. It was inhabited by Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Magyars,Ukrainians, and Poles. The existing "national antagonism," especiallybetween the Germans and the Czechs, was fundamentally nothing but theconflict between more or less independent capitalist groups for a share in statecontrol, as well as over internal and foreign markets. The larger part of theproletariat, as well as the petty bourgeoisie, was dragged into this conflict.

The old Austrian industry had been centered chiefly in the Sudeten(mountain-chain) districts. Af ter the breakup of the Austrian empire, Cze-choslovakian industry retained but a fourth of the former markets, as theother offshootsof the empire immediately raised tariff walls under whoseproteetion they started their own industries. A relative over-industrializa-tion of Czechoslovakia determined economie policies and influenced the rela-tions between the differnt bourgeois factions. In contrast to the largely Ger-man border territories, the inner area of Czechoslovakia was relatively littleindustrialized. Such industry as exists is mainly for domestic consumption.It was less affected by the depression than the export industries in theSudeten regions. Furthermore, the agricultural Czech interior belongs to theEuropean east which experienced a period of industrialization after the war.This state-fostered industrial development moderated the effects of the crisison th is section of Czechoslovakia. AIso, the munitions industry located inthe Czech districts and operating at high capacity for years reduced unernploy-

*German trade with the Danubian countries is continuously increasing.Hungary's economie Iife, for instanee, is now almost entirely dominated bythe "Third Reich." In the other countries the increase in trade is hardly lessstriking, as is shown by the foIIowing table:German Trade with Certain Southeastern EAlropean Countriea

Imports Exports1933 1937 19:.:3:.:3:..- --;1937:...,..,- _

Bulgaria 38.2 % 55.0 % 36.0 % 40.0 %Rumania 18.6 % 30.8 % 10.6 % 20.2 %Turkey 25.5 % 41.6 % 18.9 % 35.4 %Yugoslavia 13.2 % 32.6.% 13.9 % 21.7 %

(L'Europe NouveIle, July 16; p. 762 - July 23; p. 785

130

ment of the Czech wor kers. Besides the frictions between new and old in-dustries the powerful agricultural interests influenced the government towardsan agricultural orientation. Sudeten industry could not find sufficient govern-mental representation or support and developed opposition to the rulingnationalistic groups.

The Nazi victory in Germany had far reaching consequences for the in-ternal and extern al polities of Czechoslovakia. It now found itself borderingto a state from whose imperialist urge for expansion it had everything to fear.lts immediate reaction to provocative advances of Germany was a closer sup-port of French imperialism and, consequentIy, of Russia (diplomatie récogni-tion, nonaggression, and military assistance pact), as weIl as a closer con-neetion with the states of the little entente. A further effect on foreignpolicy was the clouding of diplomatie relations with Poland, which had es-tablished friendly relations with German imperialism.

The ideological result of HitIer-German activity was an intensifiednationalism by the Czechoslovakian bourgeoisie, operating under the mask ofanti-fascism. The organized labor movement already supported the nation-alistic policies of the Czech government. As the Czech Social Democracy andtrade unions identified themselves with the national interests of theirbourgeoisie, so the German Social Democracy in the Sudeten region, at firsthesitantly, but in the end openly, defended the interests of the Germanbourgeoisie and strengthened the nationalistic movement. They becameobjectively fascists for the same reason that the Czechs became anti-fascists.When the diplomatie bonds between Russia and Czechoslovakia we re tighten-ed, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia declared itself ready to cooperatewith the bourgeoisie in defense of capitalism and Czech independence. Thepositions of the diverse labor organizations in Czechoslovakia thus excludedany at tempt at solving the German-Czechoslovak contradictions in asocialistic - revolutionary manner.

The reasons for the swift growth of fascism in the Sudeten region arefound in its peculiar economie conditions. The crisis manifested itself herein an extraordinary impoverishment of the masses. The decline of the highlydeveloped export industry of the border districts struck down the wholeeconomy and social life. ImPortant production centers of finished goods, tex-tiles, and glass became veritable industrial cemeteries. Even better situateddistricts such as the soft coal mines and connected industries showed a severedecline and unemployment problem. Wages already low before the crisis(among the lowest in Europe) were further reduced. However, the chiefstrength of the fascist move ment consisted of the mass of impoverished pettybourgeois and peasantry. The decline of the export industries, partly of apetty bourgeois nature, reduced the purchasing power of the masses; taxationbrought small tradesmen, merchants and craftsmen to the verge of ruin. Theyoung intelligentsia found no room in the declining economy. The Germansmall farmers in the less fertile border districts we re injured by the govern-mental agrarian measures designed to favor the large landholders. The

131

Germans in Czechoslovakia saw the solution of their troubles in fascism.Hitler's re-employment program won the masses. Large parts of the work-ing class, tired of the unsuccessful reform policy of the Social Democrats andthe idiotie phrase-rnongering of the Communists set their hopes on the newrising movement, whose spirit and far-reaching demands promised a decidedimprovement in their lot. Once this movement had attained sufficient pro-porti ons, it was carried on by its own momentum, tillithe fascist party be-came the strongest in Sudetenland. That this movement was ernployed tothe fullest extent by German fascism is nothing to be wondered at, and thatit was strengthened in return is also obvious.

The Future of the DanubeCzechoslovakia, the stumbling block in Hitler's march to the Southeast,·

is now removed. Even though it continues to exist, it can no longer refuseGermany's behest. If not continously supported by English loans, it has noalternative but to coordinate its economy and therewith its policies to thoseof Germany. If necessary, Germany will annex the whole of the country,repeating the performance recently given on the world stage. Czechoslovakiawas sacrificed, according to Chamberlain, in the interest of maintaining worldpeace, as the issue of its independenee was not important enough to justify ageneral conflagration. This, however, is not true. The Czechoslovakianissue is only one aspect of a much larger issue, which again is only a frag-ment in the mosaic of world policy. The "solution" found in the interest of"world peace" is only temporary and has nothing to do with pacifistic trendsin the leading capitalistic powers, but has something to do with their prepa-rations for war. Neither the Godesberg nor the Munich conference dealtwith problems of Czech independence; those questions were settled longbefore. They dealt with problems arising after Germany's desires weresatisfied. Though the coordination of German and English imperialism is notpossible in the long run, at present the English support of Hitler's actionsserves certain interests of English imperialism. And only insofar as those in-terests are fostered through Germany's advance, will the latter find Britishsupport. This support, at the moment, helps Germany in its policies on theDanube, but even here this support is simultaneously counteracted bydiplomatic and financial measures on the part of England and France.

The London Times of August 26 quoted the following from theDeutsche Allçemeine Zeitung on German-Hungarian relations:"Hungary is the first partner with whom Germany has begun her new tradepolicy, based on mutual exchange and trade without the use of gold. Thisis the foundation stone of a new economie zone in Central Europe, whiehwill correspond to the natural unity of the Danube area. The old liberalsystem of world trade is broken onee and for all and will be superseded bythe new system, and there should be no doubt that Central. Europe forms anatural economie area of whieh a free and strong Hungary is a eornerstone."As in Hungary, so elsewhere, Germany quite successfully employed several"unorthodox" methods to gain economie control over the small southeasternEuropean states. With exchange clearing arrangements it managed to get,.132

herself into the debt of those countries, which condition forced them then tobuy German goods. Germany buys goods from these countries without 1098

of foreign exchange, and then resells th~m ~broad to obtain foreign exchange.It employs a number of long-term-credit tncks, and other complicated ar-rangements to involve her own economie affairs deeply with those of othercountries. Politically it supports the national demands of countries likeHungaryand Poland to obtain their more or less willing support for her ownterritorial designs. There can be no doubt that Germany is extremely serieusabout this southeast expansion, and that she thinks in terms of a German-controlled Central Europe, which would make her the most powerful countryon the continent. Though this kind of "imperialist ic planning" is, in the longrun, not more but less sound than her "national planning" attempts, yetGermany cannot help but continue to look at Central Europe as a "natural"i. e., a German area. However, there is a strong feeling in the Danubian andBalkan nations against th is growing German control, a "sentiment" morethen ever fostered by Britain and France. Huge English loans to Turkey,French loans to Bulgaria, new loans to Czechoslovakia by both countries, neweconomie deals between Britain and Rumania are the means of counteractingthe German influence. The "harrnony" between Germany and countrieslike Hungary and Poland turns into new frictions on the question of thedivision of the spoiIs. And in the background, only apparently undisturbed,lies watchful Italy, not to be left out from the game in the Danube countriesand in the Balkans. The struggle for dominanee in these territories is by nomeans at its end, it only begins to enter a serious stage. England andFrance, not to speak of the smaller directly affected nations, not only wiIlcontinue to show interest but will increase their interests in the Southeastand continuously face Germany as a merciless adversary. The future of theDanube and the Balkans does not spell peace but new frictions and even-tually war.

"They Dress Like Mourners, Yet Rejoice"It is long known that England's sanctions policy during the Eshiopean

conflict was merely an elect ion trick and not a real opposition to Italy's con-quest. It is obvious, too, that England's policy in Spain helped rather thanhindered the German-ltalian invasion. It was long known that the Britishgovernment favored ceding the Sudeten area to Germany; that Hitler couldrely on Chamberlain to the fullest extent. But why? Apparently, aU theseaffairs, threaten England's influence in Europe. England's policy of "retreat"found much opposition and was excused with an existing weakness inarmaments. This led to a real "Peoples Front" for more armaments, andto an increase of nationalism useful for intern al purposes. England's unpre-paredness, however, is nonsense. All countries arm, there is no chance to"out-arm" particular countries. No one can wait for such a day. Englanddoes not refuse to act because it is weak, it can afford to delay actionbecause it still is strong. And it gets daily stronger by harping upon a non-ex-isting weakness. It did not find a war against Germany advisable from theviewpoint of her own interests. It had to indicate her readiness for war,

133

however, to make Germany understand that the latitude given to it is l.imite~,and is permitted only under certain conditions. It had to engage 10 thissimulation of "resistanee" for "home consumption".

The English empire is continually threatened on many frontiers. Thedefense of this empire takes all the strength England can muster , and deter-mines all its policies. If England, in the face of the world situation, canmaintain what it has, it has already scored a huge success. It takes morefor England to be a non-aggressor than it takes for others to he. a~gressors.Europe proper is in some ways the least important to England, rt IS. of de-termining importance to her only insofar as she cannot allow the nse of aEuropean power capable of challenging English supremacy in Europe andtherewith the empire as well. After the German defeat in the last worldwar France seemed to become the leading power on the European continent.However in the course of time, England managed to reduce it again tonothing but a vassal state of England. England's "friendliness' towardsGermany was designed largely to stop the French advance. However, theFranco-Russian alliance, for which Czechoslovakia served as a bridge foroperations, allowed France to maintain a degree o~ inde~e.ndence, and evenoffered possibility of a successful opposition to English policies. The Franco-Russian alliance also supported the Russian position; it diminished the dangerto be expected from Germany and, consequently, increased Russia's impor-tance as a power in Asia. Russia might very well become a greater dangerto England than Germany. lts imperialism always had opposed British im-perialism. Russia in China and Persia; her ability to threaten British in-fluence in India and Egypt; her strategie position in Asia, not to be destroy-ed by a sea power - all these moments have to be feared once more byBritain especially since the scramble for imperialistic rule in Asia was opened, , . h bagain with the J apanese war against China. Germany s advance mig t e notonly "a lesser evil", but the "solution" of Engl~nd'~ imperia~istic pr~blems: Acombination Russia-China, as well as a combination Russia-America, mightdo away with the J apanese menace, but not in the interest of.. E?gland.Russia must not be too strong; a powerful Germany would rmrnrmze theRussian menace in Asia. Then again, a Germany too strong, in preferenee toastrong Russia, will eventually march toward the Dardanelles, i. e., againstfar-reaching British interests: will eventually blackmail England into sur-rendering the old and additional new colonies for the uVolk ohne Raum",However, Germany is only marching; the goal is stil~ far away, and for sometime to come Germany might well serve. England's mterests not only by ab-staining from alliances against England, but by allyin~ its. inter~sts with thoseof England to allow the latter a more successful policy in ASla. And, any-way, international policy is determined by mo~e po~ers than England. TheGerman rise simply had to be taken into consideration, and attempts had tobe made to utilize it. France had to be weakened to satisfy Italy and toloosen the latter's bonds with Germany. Germany had to be given concessionsto prepare the stage for new German-ltalian rivalries, forcing .ltaly .bac.k in~oan alliance with England. Time will break the Rome-Berlm axis ; it wiltbreak precisely because of its success. The German advance broke the134

Franco-Russian pact, and Russia has now to rest riet its Asiatic ambitions; itcannot function in Asia against both England and Japan with Germanyin its rear. It loses importance as an ally of America, and strengthens theposition of England toward the U. S. A. Though Japan is still on the scene,it is quite isolated and can be dealt with at a more opportune moment. Itmight .even be forced to come to terms with England if the war in Chinalasts long enough; a long tradition of J apanese-English friendship is not for-gotten. There exists also the paradoxical situation that the U. S. with itstrade helps Japan to continue its war, to increase its opposition to England ;a circumstance th at may force England into a Russian alliance, so that, wheoit comes to a division of the Asiatic spoils, America can demand its propershare on the basis of the Russian bayonets. An American-Russian allianceconsiderably weakens the English position in Asia, which also accounts for thelax attitude of England toward J apanese aggression. The isolation of theJ apanese-Chinese war is explainable only on the basis of the rivalries amongAmerica, Russia and England. The far-seeing policy of England, not incon-sistent with her noted pragmatic attitude, comes clearly to light in the presentrefusal to support Russia by eliminating the German danger. However, thefuture may still force England into line with Russia and America and th iswill lead to a reshifting of the European imperialistic setup, to a new warcrisis, and possibly even to actual war.

There are many other combinations. It would take books to deal withall the imperialistic probabilities, and all these books would not lead to onedecisive statement as to the actual line up of powers in the coming worldwar. Hitler might be forced, by internal as well as extern al developments, toally Germany to Russia and turn once more against the West, and to attemptto break down the English empire: Wh at is predictable, on the basis of thepresent situation and through a knowledge of the character of capitalist pre).duction, is that the war is inevitable, unless the social revolution does awayon an international scale with crisis conditions which under capitalism caobe solved only temporarily. All we are concerned with here is to show that,whatever moves are made on the international scene, they have nothing to dowith ideological considerations, or forms of government, but with the im-mediate and resulting future interests of the various imperialistic nations.Roosevelt's appeal for peace, for instanee, did not result from his navy-favored

. pacifist attitude, nor, as is often assumed, from his pro-English position, butfrom a consideration of American capitalism directed against Germany in theinterest of Russia, its probable ally in American Asiatic policy.

As a side issue, though of no small importance, England's pro-Germanpolicy, directed against French and Italian interests, has secured for it thepossibility of maintaining sufficient influence in Spain. In short, in everyrespect and for the near future, English policy, directed at avoiding a war atth is moment, was exclusively dictated by Britain's own imperialistic in-terests. From the viewpoint of realities the international policy of Englandhas again met with success. Though England has to share its triumph withGermany and Italy, nevertheless it lost nothing it self, and succeeded in im-proving its Asiatic position considerably, trusting that the fut ure will not

135

serve the present European lineup too much, and will prevent both Germanyand Italy from asking more than England is willing to grant. However, itpays for England to ap~ear the victim instead of the victor; to maintain theattitude of mourner and yet rejoice. For instance, it creates another"paradoxical" but nevertheless useful situation in England itself. Not

• Herbert Morrison, the labor leader, hypocriticaUy clamoring for war against"fascism" - that is, asking for English fascism - but the "fascist" NevilleChamberlain, by postponing the war, remains for the time being the bestdefender of English "democracy." In the meantime, armaments will increaseunopposed; nationalism, especially fostered by the labor leaders, will grow;the economie and political scene in the "democratie countries" will becomeless distinguishable from those in the "fascist countries." The struggle for"democracy" against "fascism" leads, before it starts, to the fascization of the"democratie countries," and the actual struggle will, in all probability, befought as that which it really is: a struggle of one set of capitalists againstanother.

American "Isolation"Lately, especially during the European -;;r CriSIS, the question of

American isolation was again most heatedly discussed. Isolationists proclaimedthat those fostering "collective security" were werking in the interest of eitherEngland or Russia, th at peace and prosperity can be maintained only byavoiding aU European entanglements. However, America never was and neverwill beso isolated. Though America at times can forego aggression in itsimperialistic designs, its imperialistic needs do not disappear. In the pro-paganda for "collective security" and the "peace of the world" imperialismfound more attractive names. Like any other government now, the Americangovernment is war-minded. However, wars are always advocated and foughtin the interests of peace, which some neighbor, of ten thousands of miles away,never fails to disturb. Hitler, too, wants peace - naturally, a German peace.Roosevelt maintained in his famous Chicago speech th at "aggressors should bequarantined by the concerted action of all peace-loving nations." And Mr.HuIl, Secretary of State, pointed out in a recent speech on international rela-tions over the radio (August 16) and to the dismay of the isolationists that"in the eircumstanees which prevail in the world today, no nation and nogovernment can avoid participation in determining which course shall betaken ... Each day's development makes increasingly clear that our ownsituation is profoundly affected by what happens elsewhere in the world."

In accordance with the recognition of "America's duties," armaments areincreased at an ever swifter tempo. The navy brings its fighting ships up to336, including 22 super-dreadnoughts, 69 cruisers, 149 destroyers, and 116submarines. "The technical nature of the President's naval message and ·ofthe naval bill," said a report by a group of isolationists, including SenatorsN ye, Borah, Vandenberg and Hiram J ohnson,"shows that the bill may be used to implement the quarantine and the policyof intervention in Asia; and if this bill is passed (it was), the President willhave a blanket authorization, af ter Congress adjourns, to apply the universalquarantine policy and the Asiatic interventionist policy."136 I

q

As for the arrny, Secretary of War Wood ring recently pointed out thatplans are perfected to mobilize one and one-quarter millions of men withinfour months. Industrial mobilization plans are ready for immediate use: themunitions works are booming. However, the general attitude, carefully foster-ed by the propaganda machine, maintains th at America is only interested inanother war to stop once and for aIl the "lawlessness" of the aggressor na-tions; to make the world really safe for "democracy". And such intentlomare demonstrated by Mr. Ickes' refusal to sell helium to Germany, and bythe discoveryof German spies in America; however, not by stopping theshipments of scrap iron for J apanese munition works. Though the "Americanheart" is on the side of Loyalist Spain, still nothing essential was done tohelp the country, for it never was clear that such a help would foster Amer-ican interests. The naval program is supposedly conceived as a support tothe English Reet wh en the latter goes out to establish "order" in the world.And it might very well act in such a capacity, if England succeeds in draw-ing America to her side or if America should find it convenient to line upwith England. If such a combination, or the one previously mentioned,should become a reality, the Americans would not arm for the sake of others,but for their own imperialistic interests.

We Are AH Marxists NowAfter the last war many important statesmen turned Leninist. Wilson

proclaimed the right of self-determination of the small nations. France andEngland practiced the principle by creating a number of little states to hindera German comeback. In their excitement they overlooked th at the newcountries on their part, oppressed a considerable number of minorities. Butthings were settled. The reconstruction of world capitalism guaranteedpeace for a considerable time. Then the depression of 1929 set the stage fornew imperialistic movements. Things began to happen. Japan tookManchuria and penetrated into China. Italy went to Africa and Spain :Germany to Spain and the Southeast. The slogan of "selfdetermination,"once raised against Germany, was now used by the Germans in their owninterests. The slogan conceived by Lenin, because it would bother Englandthrough unrest in her colonial possessions, now helped to bring Austria andthe Sudeten region to fascist Germany. The Wilson-Lenin slogan no longerserved the Allies nor Russia, nor did it serve the reformist and nationallybound labor movement. "No longer can we use," said Otto Bauer, shortlybefore his death, "the slogan of the self-determination of nations, for it isnow used by Hitler for imperialistic purposes ; instead, we have to raise theslogan of Frederick Engels trom the year 1848: "An alliance of all revolu-tionary nations against the counter-revolutionary nations."* From such a"Marxist" point of view one has to look upon Russia, America, England andFrance as "revolutionary" and support them in their "revolutionary Marxiststruggle" against "counter-revolutionary" fascism. However, such a "return

*0. Bauer, "Self-determination for the Sudeten Germans?" Der SozialistischeKampf. June 16, 1937,p. 27.

137

to Marx and Engels" indicates only th at the old labor movement, asyesterday so today, is not concerned with a struggle against capitalism, butonly with a struggle for a capitalism granting the right to "organize labor."lts light against fascism really is a ~ead-and-butter light of labor organizers.However, their struggle is lost forever; one cannot light fascism withoutfighting capitalisrn, The old labor movement tries to sell its shabby remnantsoncë more to capita list ic and imperialistic purposes, and creates already inpeace time what was the most disgusting aspect of the last war: a chauvinismmuch greater than the bourgeoisie is able to develop itself. U nder such con-ditions, it seems utterly fantastic to assume that the coming war, which waspostponed, but merely postponed, could be prevented by actions on the part ofthe organized working class. With the exception of a few voices in thewilderness, the workers hear nothing, from right to left, but of the need forwar. They must, to stop the war, oppose not only the whole of internationalcapitalism in a11 its forms and expressions, but also the whole internationalorganized labor movement in a11 its forms and expressions ; a task which, itseems to us, is too large to be expected to be accomplished without the"education," the force, and the help of gigantic CrISIS and war, and thecoming war may yet serve the working class as a basis for new attempts ata world-revolutionary solution of its most urgent needs.

LENIN'S PI-IILOSOPI-IYSame additional remarks to J. Harper's recent criticism of Lenin's baakUMaterialism and Ëmpirio-Üriticism;"

Leninism Goes WestThere is a striking' contrast

between the impression produced inthe minds of West-European revolu-tionaries by those short pamphlets ofLenin and Trotsky which appearedin poorly translated and poorly print-ed editions during the final stage andthe aftermath of the war, and theresponse called forth in Europe and:U. S. A. by the belated appearance,in 1927, of the first extra-Russianversions of Lenin's philosophicalwork of 1908, on "Matorialiam andEmpirio-Criticiam."

Those earlier pamphlets on "TheMarxist Theory of the State and theTaaka of tho Proletarian Rovolution"and on "The Next Taaka of theSoviet-Power" were eagerly studiedby the European radicals as the firstreliable news from a victorious pro-letarian revolution and as practicalguides for their own impending revo-188

lutionary uprrsmgs, They were, atthe same time, ignored, falsified,calumniated, despised, and - fright-fully feared by the bourgeoisie andits reformist and Kautskyan-centristbackers within the Marxist camp.When Lenin's philosophical work ap-peared the whole scene had changed.Lenin was dead. The Russia of theSoviets had been gradually trans-formed into just another state im-merged in the competitive strugglesbetween the various "blocks" ofpowers which had been formed in aEurope apparently quickly re cover-ing from the war and from the deepbut transitory economie crisis re-sulting from the war. -Marxism hadbeen replaced by Leninism or, morerecently, by Stalinism which wasnow no more regarded primarily asa theory of the proletarian classstruggle but rather as the ruling

I

philosophy of a state, different butnot entirely different from suchother state philosophies as fascism inltaly and democracy in the U. S. A.Even the last remnants of the prole-tarian "unrest" following the warhad flickered out with the crushingdefeat of the English general strikeand miners' strike in 1926 and thebloody termination of the fust andso-called "communist" phase of theChinese revolution. Thus, the Euro-pean intelligentsia was quite ready toaccept, along with the hitherto un-known earliest philosophical writingsof Marx which were now publishedin a princely fashion by the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Institute in Moscow,the equally "piquant" philosophicalrevelations of his great Russiandisciple who, af ter a11,had swept theempire of the Czar and until hisdeath maintained an uncha11engeddictatorship there.

But those strata of the West-European proletariat who had beenthe first and the most serious andpersistent readers of Lenin's revolu-tionary pamphiets of 1917-1920 hadapparentIy disappeared from thescene. They had been replaced in thepublic eye either by those all-adap-tabie careerists of Stalinism whoform the only sta bIe sector of the ra-pidly shifting membership of all ex-tra-Russian Communist parties to-day, or as typical of recent EnglishC. P. development, by progressivemembers of the ruling class itselfand its natural supporters within thebetter educated, most cultured, andwell-to-do strata of the oid and newintelligentsia who have practicallyreplaced t h e former proletarianmembership. Revolutionary prole-tarian communism seemed to surviveonly in isolated individu al thinkersand in such sma11 groups as theDutch Council Communists f romwhich the pamphlet under discussionoriginated.

We might expect that Lenin's bookwhen it was finally made available tothe West-European and Americanpublic for the express purpose ofspreading there those philosophicalprinciples of Marxism which formthe basis of the present Russian stateand of its ruling Communist partywould have met with almost un-iversal applause. Nothing of the

kind has happened. N() doubt thephilosophy of Lenin as expressed inthat book is infinitely superior, evenfrom a strictly theoretical viewpoint,to those scattered crumbs from thesystems of bygone counterrevolutio-nary philosophers and sociologiststhat have been formed into thesemblance of a philosophical systemof fascism by Mussolini, with thehelp of the former Hegelian philoso-pher, Gentile, and other inte11ectualaides-de-camp. It is incomparablysuperior to that huge mass of triteevery-day talk and senseless trashwhich figure as a politico-philosophi-cal WeltanschauuDg' in the "theoreti-cal" work of Adolf Hitler. Thus thepeople who could find novelty andwisdom in the ideas of Mussolini anddiscover sense in the vaporings of theGerman leader, certainly should nothave feIt any difficulty in: swaUowingalso that considerable amount ofmisinterpretation, misunderstanding,and general backwardness which marthe theoretical value of Lenin'sphilosophical attempt. Even thosefew who today are acquainted withthe works of the philosophers andscientists discussed by Lenin in 1908and wit h the developments ofmodern science generally might havebeen able to dig out of this work ofLenin (to speak in the favorite styleof its author) that "gem" of clearand persistent revolutionary thoughtwhich is "hidden in the rubbish" ofunqualified acceptance of t h eobsolete "materialist" concepts of apast historical epoch and equa11y un-qualified abuse of some of the mostgenuine attempts of modern scien-tists to promote the theory of mate-rialism. Nevertheless, the responseof the progressive bourgeois in-telligentsia at large to the belatedpropaganda of Lenin's materialistphilosophy must have proved dis-appointing to the Russians, who hadshown on several occasions that theywere by no means above desiringsome applause for their pet achleve-ments in matters of theory evenfrom such Marxistically "unholy"quarters as the philosophical andscientific circles of Western Europeand America. There was not so muchopen hostility as indifference and,even more awkward, just amongthose whose applause would have

139

been most cherished, a kind of politeembarrassment.

Nor was this embarrassing silencedisturbed, for a long time, by .anyvigorous attack from th at left radicalMarxist minority which formerly hadso violently assailed every attemptot Lenin and his successors to trans-fcrrm the political and tactical prin-ciples successfully applied by theBolsheviks in the Russian revolutioninto universally valid principles ofthe proletarian world revolution. Theremaining representatives of thatleftist tendency were very slow toraise an equa11y fierce attack againstthe analogous attempt of a world-wide application of Lenin's philoso-phical principles as the only truephilosophical doctrine of revolution-ary Marxism. Here at last, thirtyyears af ter the first (Russian) publi-cation of Lenin's book and elevenyears af ter the appearance of itsfirst German and English tanslations:- is the first critical re-examinationof Lenin's contribution to the mate-rialist philosophy of Marxism, writt-en by one who undoubtedly and formany reasons is better qualified forthis particular task than any othercontemporary Marxist. * Even sothere is little hope that this first im-portant critici sm of Lenin's philoso-phy will reach even that relativelysmall minority of revolutionary

Leninism Versus MachismIt is impossible to discuss in a

single artiele the many importantresults of th is masterly pamphlet.Af ter a short and luminous accountof the historical development ofMarxism since the days of Marx andof early bourgeois materialism,Harper goes on to restate in anirreproachable manner the true the-oretical contents of the attempts byJoseph Dietzgen on the one hand andby the bourgeois scientists, Machand Avenarius, on the other, to im-prove upon their predecessors bycompleting their materialistic repre-sentation of the objective world by

.J. Harper, Lenin als PbiJosoph. KritischeBetrachtung der philosophischen Grundlagendes Lerrirriamua, Bibliothek der "Rate-korrespondenz" No. 1. Auagabe der GruppeInternationaler Kommunisten in Holland ..(112 PP.; 30 cent.s ) , Distribution in U.S.A.through Council Correspondence, P. O. Box5848, Chicago, 11\.

140

Marxists to whom it is mainly ad-dressed. It is published under analmost impenetrable pseudonym and,most characteristically, up to now inthe shape of a stenciled manuscriptonly.

There was, then, a considerablelag of time on both sides of thatworld-wide struggle bet wee nWestern European Marxist left radi-calism on the one hand and RussianBolshevism on the other, before theopposed camps discovered that theirpolitical, tactical and organizationalcontrasts depended, in the last in-stance, on those deeper principleswhich had hitherto been neglected inthe heat of the practical fight andthus could not be thoroughly elu-cidated without going back to thoseunderlying philosophical principles.It seems as if even here old Hegelwas right when he said that "the birdof Minerva begins its flight when theday is gone." It does not fo11ow,however, that this last, "philosophi-cal phase" of the social movementgoing on in a given epoch should be,at the same time, the highest andmost important phase. The philoso-phical fight of ideas is, from a pro-letarian point of view, not the basisbut just a transitory ideological formof the revolutionary class struggledetermining the historical develop-ment of our time.

an equa11y materialistic representa-tion of the process of knowledgeitself. He shows conclusively the in-credible distortions those later theo-ries have suffered in Lenin's utterlybiased account. There does not exist,so far as we know, an equa11y mas-terly report of the main scientificcontents of the work of Mach andAvenarius as is contained in the 25pages devoted to their theories inthis pamphlet. Nor is there anequa11y powerful refutation of thetheoretical blunders committed byLenin and his fo11owers in theirnaive criticism of the modern scienti-fic definitions of such terms as"matter", "energy", "'1 a w s ofnature", "necessity", "s p ace","time", etc., from the standpoint ofso-called "common-sense" which is,in fact, in most cases nothing elsebut a rehash of the physics theories

I-

of bygone epochs of scientificdevelopment. (It was for this reason,by the way, that Frederick Engelsalready had described so-called com-monsense as "the worst of allmetaphysicians.")

Nevertheless, this is only one, andperhaps not the most important,aspect of Harper's critical revisionof Lenin's work. The main weaknessof Lenin's attack on Machism is notits general unfairness, outrightmisrepresentation of the essentia11ymaterialistic approach underlyingthe new positivistic philosophy, andcomplete unawareness of the realachievements made since the days ofMarx and Engels in the field ofmodern physical science. The mainweakness of Lenin's "materialistic"criticism of what he ca11ed an ide-alistic (solipsistic, mystical and, inthe last instanee, plainly religiousand reactionary) tendency hidden inthe pseudo materialistic and scien-tific theories of Mach and his follow-ers, is his own inability to go beyondthe intrinsic limitations of bourgeoismaterialism. Much as he talks of thesuperiority of "modern" Marxistmaterialism over the abstract philo-sophical and mainly naturalistic ap-proach of the early bourgeois materi-alists, he still conceived this differ-ence between the old and new mate-rialism as a difference not in kindbut in degree. At the utmost hedescribed "modern materialism" asfounded by Marx, as a materialism"immeasurably richer in content, andincomparably better grounded thana11previous forms of materialism."**He never conceived of the differencebetween the "historical materialism"of Marx and the "previous forms ofmaterialism" as an unbreachable op-position arising from a real conflictof classes. He conceived it rather asa more or less radical expression ofone continuous revolutinary move-ment. Thus Lenin's "materialistic"criticism of Mach and the Machians,according to Harper, failed even inits purely theoretical purpose mainlybecause Lenin attacked the later at-tempts of bourgeois naturalistic

··See: Lenin, Col\ected Work., Vol. XIII.International Pub lishers. New York 1927;P. 291.

materialism not from the viewpointof the historical materialiam of thefu11y developed proletarian cia •• ,but from a preceding and scientifi-ca11y les developed p h ase ofbourgeois materialism.

This judgment of Lenin's mate-rialist philosophy of 1908 is corrob-orated by the later developments ofLenin's philosophical theory whichare not dealt with in this pamphlet.

The recent publication by theMarx - Engels - Lenin - Institute ofLenin's philosophical pap e r sdated from 1914 et seq. shows thefirst germs of that particular signifi-cance which during the last phases ofLenin's activity and af ter his deaththe philosophical thought of Hegelassumed in Lenin's "materialisticphilosophy." A belated revival ofthe whole of the formerly disownedidealistic dialectica of Hegel servedto reconcile the acceptance by theLeninists of old bourgeois mate-rialism with the formal demands ofan apparently anti bourgeois andproletarian revolutionary tendency.Whilst in the preceding phases"historical materialism" still hadbeen conceived, though not with suf-ficient clearness, as different fromthe "previous forms of materialism"the emphasis was now shifted from"historical" materialism to "dia-lectical materialism" or, as Leninsaid in his late st contribution to thesubject, to "a materialistic applica-tion of Hegelian (idealistic) dia-lectics." Thus the whole circle noto n 1y of bourgeois materialisticthought but of all bourgeois philo-sophical thought from Holbach toHegel was actually repeated by theRussian dominated phase of theMarxist movement, which passedfrom the adoption of 18th centuryand Feuerbachian materialism byPlechanov and Lenin in the pre-warperiod to Lenin's appreciation of the"intelligent idealism" of Hegel andother bourgeois philosophers of the19th century as against the "un-intelligent materialism" of t h eearlier 18th century philosophers, **.···See: Lenin. Aus dem PhilosophischenNachlass. Ex z e r p t e and Randg loasen,German ed. Berlin 1932; p. 212.

141

Present Impact of Lenin's Materialistic Philosophy

In the last parts of the pamphletHarper deals with the hlstorical andpractical significance of the peculiartheoretical aspects of Lenin's mate-rialist philosophy as discussed ~n thepreceding chapters. He fully acknow-ledges the tactical necessity, underthe conditions in pre-revolutionaryczarist Russia, of Lenin's relentIessûght against the left bolshevik,IJogdanov, and other more or lessoutspoken fo11owers of Mach's ideaswho in spite of their good revolution-ary intentions actually jeopardizedthe unity and weakened the provenrevolutionary energy of the Marxistparty by a revision of its "mono-lithic" materialistic ideology. In fact,Harper goes somewhat further inhis positive appreciation of Lenin'sphilosophical tactics of 1908 thanseems justified to this writer even ina retrospective analysis of the past.If he 'had investigated, in his criticalrevision of Lenin's anti-Machistfight, the tendencies represented bythe Russian Machists as weIlas those of their G e r manmasters he might have been warnedagainst t h e unimpeachable cor-rectness of Lenin's attitude in theideological struggles of 1908 by alater occurrence. When Lenin, af ter1908, was through with the Machistopposition which had arisen withinthe central committee of the Bol-shevik party itself, he regarded thatwhole incident as closed. In the pref-ace to the second Russian edition ofhis book, in 1920, he mentioned thefact that he had "no opportunity toexamine Bogdanov's latest works,"but was quite convinced, by what hehad been told by others, that "underthe guise of 'proletarian culture'Bogdanov is introducing bourgeoisand reactionary views." Yet he didnot deliver him to the GPU to be in-stantly shot for this horrible crime.He was quite content, in those pre.Stalinist days, to leave the spiritualexecution to the good and reliableparty-werker whose artiele he an-nexed- to his book. Thus we learnfrom the faithful Leninist, V. 1.Nevsky, that Bogdanov had not onlyunrepentantly persisted in his formerMachist errors, but even bad added142

to them a new and more glaringcrime of omission. It is a "curiouscircumstance," reports Nevsky, thatin a11 his writings on theoreticaltopics and on the probIems of prole-tarian culture published during theperiod of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat, Bogdanov never mentioneda single word about "production andthe system of its management duringthe dictatorship of the proletariat,just as there is not mentioned a wordabout the dictatorship itself." Thefact proves, indeed, the unreformedand unreformable character of that"idealistic" sinner against the veryprinciples underlying the materialistphilosophy of Lenin and his follow-ers. We do not want to imply herethat Bogdanov's definitions of thephysical world as "socially organizedexperience," of matter as "nothingelse than resistance to collectivelabor efforts," and nature as the "un-folding panorama' of work-experi-ence," contain a rea11y materialisticand proletarian solution of theproblem raised by Marx in his Theseson Feuerbach of 1845 when he saidthat "the chief defect of all hithertoexisting materialism was that thegiven world, reality, sensuousness,was conceived only in the form ofthe object or of contemplation, butnot subjectively as human sen_ousactivit'y" or as "revolutionary prac-tice." The real point is that weshould not under any conditions,either today or even retrospectively,make the slightest concession to thatbasic fa11acy inherent in Lenin'sphilosophical fight against Machismand faithfully repeated by his minorfo11owers in their struggle againstthe materialistic attempts of scien-tific positivism today.

This fallacy is that the militantcharacter of a revolutionary mate-rialist theory can and must bemaintained against the weakening in-fluences of other apparently hostiletheoretical tendencies by any meansto the exclusion of modificationsmade imperative by furtherscientificcriticism and research. This falla-cious conception caused Lenin toevade discussion on their merits ofsucb new scientific concepts and.,.

theories that in his judgment jeop-ardized the proved fighting value ofthat revolutionary (though notnecessarily proletarian revolution-ary) .materialist philosophy that hiliMarxist party had adopted, less fromMarx and Engels than from theirphilosophical teachers, the bourgeoismaterialists from Hol b ach toFeuerbach and their idealistic an-tagonist, the dialectical philosopherHegel. .Rather h~ stuck to bis guns,preferrmg the Immediate practicalutility .of a given ideology to itstheoretical. truth. i~ a changingworld. 'I'his doctrinaire attitude, bythe way, runs parallel to Lenin'spolitical practice. It corresponds tohls unshakable jacobinic belief ina. given P?litical form (of a party, adictatorship, or a state) whichhasbeen found useful to the aims of thebourgeois revolution of the past andcan therefore be trusted as useful tothe aims of the proletarian revolu-tion as well. Both in his revolu-tionary materialist philosophy and inhis revolutionary jacobinic politics.Lenin hid from himself the historicaltruth that his Russian revolution inspite of a temporary attempt' tobreak through its particular Iimita-tions in connection with the simulta-neous revolutionary movement of theproletarian class in the West wasbound to remain in fact a b~latedsuccessor of the great bourgeois rev-olutions of the past.

It is a long way from Lenin'sviolent philosophical attack on Macha.n~ Avenarius' "idealistic" posi-tivism and empirio.,criticism to thatrefined scientific criticism of thelatest developm.ents within the posi-tIVIst camp which was published in

. 19~8 in the extremely cultured peri-odical of the English Communistparty.· Yet there is underlying thisc~itical attack on the most progres-srve form of modern positivisticthought the same old Leninist falla-cy. The critic carefu11y avoids com-mitting himself to any school ofphilosophical thought. He wouldmost likely agree with Ludwig Witt-genstein who in his final phase dealtwith all philosophy as a curable

disease rather than a series ofproblems. Ye.t he bases his wholeargument against modern positivismon the assumption that the vigorousfig~t. :waged .by the old militantpositivism agamst a11philosophy wasfounded on the very fact that thiso~d'positivis~ had started from adistinctly phIlosophical creed itselfWhen therefore the latest and i~some respects most scientific schootof the modern "Logical Positivists"as represented by R. Carnap recentlywithdrew temporarily from th e"philosophical" attempt of construct-ing "one homogeneous system of~aws for the whole of science," andmstead concentrated on the moremodest task of establishing a "unityof the language of all science··." itwould follow from the 'argumentbrought forward by their pseudo-Leninist critic that by the sameprocess by which they abandon theirformer philosophical basis they mustnecessarily weaken also the crusad-ing ~dor of their former antiphilo-s?phlcal fight. "The positivist whodisturbed every philosophical back-water with rude cries of nonsense"says the cri tic, "is now reduced tosaying, in the mildest and most in.offensive manner, 'nonsense is mylanguage" . It is easy to see thatthis argument can be used in a two-fold manner, as a theoretical attackagainst the confusion between philo-sop~y and science underlying theearlter phas~ of positivism, and as apractica! justification for keeping upthat philosophical basis in spite ofthe belated discovery of its scientificunsoundness. However, the wholeargument is not founded on anysound logicalor empirical reasoning.There is no need either for themodern bourgeois scientist or forthe Marxist to stick to an obsolete(positivistic or materialistic ) "philo-sophy" for the purpose of preservinghis full and unbroken "militancy" inthe fight against that necessarily ina11 its forms "idealistic" system ofideas which during the last centuryunder the name of "philosophy" haswidely (though not completely)replaced medieval religieus faith inthe ideology of modern society.

·See: M. Blaek. The Evolution ot Pos i-tivism. The Modern Quarterl:v, voL I, No.I, London 1988.

"See: R. Carnap, LOllical Foundations otthe Unity ot Seienee, 1988.

143

Harp er, although not fully aban-doning the belief in the need of a"Marxist philosophy" for the revolu-tionary struggle of the modern pro-letarian c1ass, is aware of the factthat present-day Leninist "mate-rialism" is absolutely unfit to servethis purpose. It is rather a suitableideological base of that no longer es-sentially anti-capitalistic but only"anti-reactionary" and "anti-fascist"movement which has relcently beeninaugurattd by the Communist par-ties all over the world under the newslogans of a "People's Front" or insome cases even of a "NationalFront." This present-day Leninistideology of the Communist partieswhich in principle conforms to thetraditional ideology of the old SocialDemoeratic party does no longer ex-press any particular aims of theproletarian c1ass. According to Har-per, it is rather a natural expresaion

of tLe aims of tLe'new clasa' of t'Leintelligentsia, i e., an ideology whichthe various strata belonging to thisso-called new c1ass would .be likely toadopt as soon as they were freedfrom the ideological infiuence of thedecaying bougeoisie. Translated intophilosophical terms, this means thatthe "new materialism" of Lenin isthe great instrument which is nowused by the Communist parties in the.attempt to ,separate an importantsection of the bourgeoisie from thetraditional religion and idealisticphilosophies upheld by the upper andhitherto ruling strata of the bour-geois class, and to win them over tothat system of state capitalisticplanning of industry which for theworkers means just another form ofslavery and exploitation. This, ac-cording to Harper, is the truepolitical significanee of Lenin's mate-rialistic philosophy.

I. h.

GENERAL REMARKS ON TI-IE QUESTIONOF ORGANIZATION

Organization is the chief principle in the working dass fight for emanci-pation. Hence the forms of th is organization constitute the most importantproblem in the practice of the working dass movement. It is dear that theseforms depend on the c<t)ditions of society and the aims of the fight. Theycannot be invention of theory, but have to be built up, spontaneously, by theworking dass itself, guided by its immediate necessities.

With expanding capitalism the workers first built their trade unions. Theisolated worker was powerless against the capitalist ; so he had to unite withhis fellows in bargaining and fighting over the price of his labor power andthe hours of labor. Capitalists and workers have opposite interests in ca-pitalistic production ; their dass struggle is over the partition of the totalproduct between them. In normal capitalism the share of the workers is thevalue of their labor power, i. e., what is necessary to sustain and to resto recontinually their capacities to work. The remaining part of the product isthe surplus value, the share of the capitalist dass. The capitalists, in orderto increase their profit, try to lower wages and increase the hours of labor.Where the workers were powerless wages were depressed below the ex-istence minimum; the hours of labor we re lengthened until the bodily andmental health of the working class deteriorated so as to endanger the futureof society. The formation of unions and of laws regulating werking con-ditions - features rising out of the bitter fight of workers for their very,.144

life conditions - were necessary to restore normal conditions o~ work incapitalism. The capitalist dass itself recognizes that trade uni ons are ne-cessary to direct the revolt of the workers into regular channels to preventthem from breaking out in sudden explosions.

Similarly, political organizations have grown up, though not everywherein exactly the same way, because the political conditions are different irrdifferent countries. In America, where a population of farmers, artisans andmerchants free from feudal bonds could expand over a continent with endlestpossibilities, conquering the natural resources, the workers did not feel them-selves a separate class. They were imbued, as we re the whoie of the people,with the middle-class spirit of individual and collective fight for personalwelfare, and the conditions made it possible to succeed to a certain extent,Except at rare historie moments or among recent immigrant groups, nonecessity was felt for a separate working class party. In the European coun-tries, on the other hand, the workers were dragged into the political struggleby the fight of the rising bourgeoisie against feudalism. They soon had toform their working class parties and, together with part of the middle classhad to fight for political rights, for the right to form unions, for free pressand speech, for universal suffrage, for demoeratic institutions. A politicalparty needs general principles for its propaganda; for its fight with otherparties it wants a theory having definite views about the future of society.The working class of Europe, in which communist ic ideas had alreadydeveloped, found its theory in the scientific work of Marx and Engels, ex-plaining the development of society through capitalism towards communismby means of the class struggle. This theory was accepted in the programs ofthe Social-Democratic parties of most European countries; in England, theLabour Party formed by the trade uni ons, professed analogous but more vagueideas about a kind of socialist commonwealth as the aim of the workers.

In their programs and propaganda the proletarian revolution was thefinal result of the class struggle; the victory of the working class over itsoppressors was to be the beginning of a communist ic or socialist system ofproduction. But so long as capitalism lasted the practical fight had to centeron immediate needs and the preservation of standards in capitalism. Underparliamentary government parliament is the battlefield wh ere the interests ofthe different classes of society meet; big and small capitalists, land ownere,farmers, artisans, merchants, industrialists, workers, all have their special in-terests which are defended by their spokesmen in parliament, all participatein the struggle for power and for their part in the total product. The work-ers have to take part in th is struggle. Socialist or labor parties have thespecial task of fighting by political means for the immediate needs and in-terests of the workers within capitalism. In this way they get the votes ofthe workers and grow in political influence.

Il.With the modern development of capitalism conditions have changed.

The small workshops have been superseded by large factories and plants withthousands and tens of thousands of wor kers. With this growth of capitalism

145.

and ot the werking class its organizatieris also had to expand. From localgroups the trade unions grew to big nat ional federations with hundreds ofthousands of members. They had to collect large funds for support in bigstrikes, and still larger ones for social insurance. A large staff of manage~s,administrators, presidents, secretaries, editors of their papers, an entirebureaucracy of organization leaders developed. They had to haggle and bar-gain with the bosses; they became the specialists acquainted with methodsand circumstances. Eventually they became the real leaders, the masters ofthe organizations, masters of the money as well as of the press, against th.emembers.ewho lost much of their power. This development of the orgarn-zations of the workers into instruments of power over them has many ex-arnples in history; when organizations grow too large the masses lose con trolof them.

The same change takes place in the political' organizations, when fromsmall propaganda groups they grow into big political par ties. The parlia-mentary representatives are the leading politicians of the party. They haveto do the real fighting in the representative bodies, they are the specialists inthat field, they make up the editorial, propaganda, and executive personnel;their inffuence determines the politics and tactical line of the party. Themembers may do the voting, assist in propaganda and pay their dues; theymay send delegates to debate at party congresses, but their power is nominaland illusionary. The character of the organization resembles that of theother political parties - of organizations of politicians who try to win votesfor their slogans and power for themselves. Once a socialist party has alarge number of delegates in parliament it makes alliances with others againstreactionary parties to form a working majority. Soon socialists becomeministers, state officials, mayors and aldermen. Of course, in this positionthey cannot act as delegates of the working class, governing for the workersagainst the capitalist class. The real political power .an~ even the parlia-mentary majority remains in the hands of the capitalist class. Socialistministers have to represent the interests of the present capitalist society, i. e.,of the capitalist class. They can attempt to initiate measures for the im-mediate interests of the workers and try to induce the capitalist parties toacquiesce. They become middlemen - mediators - pleading with thecapitalist class to consent to small reforms in the in~erests of .the workers, a.ndthen try to convince the workers that these are Important reforms whichthey should accept. And then the Socialist Party, as an instrument in thehands of these leaders, has to support them and also, instead of calling uponthe workers to fight for their inter ests, to pacify them and deflect them fromthe class struggle.

Indeed, fighting conditions have grown worse for the workers. Withtheir capital the power of the capitalist class has increas.ed -enormously. ~heconcentration of capital in the hands of some few captains of finance and in-dustry, the coalition of the bosses themselves, confronts the trade unions wit?a much stronger and often nearly unassailable power. The fierce compen-tion of the capitalists of all countries over markets, raw materials and world

146

power, the necessiry of using increasing parts ot the surplus value tor th iscompetition, for armaments and warfare; the falling of the profit rate cornpelthe capitalists to increase the rate of exploitation, i. e., to lower the workingconditions for the workers. Thus the trade unions meet increasing resistancto,the old methods of struggle grow useless. In their bargaining with thebosses the leaders of the organizations have less success; because they knowthe power of the capitalists, and because they themeselves do not want tofight - since in such fights the funds and the whole existence of the ergani-zat ion might be lost - they must accept what the bosses offer. So theitchief task is to assuage the discontent of the workers, and to defend the pro-posals of the bosses as important gains. Here also the leaders of the work-ers' organizations become mediators between the opposing classes. And whenthe workers do not accept the conditions and strike, the leaders either mustoppose them or allowasham fighr, to be broken off as soon as possible.

The fight itself, however, cannot be stopped or rnÏnimized; the class an-tagonism and the depressing forces of capitalism are increasing, so that theclass struggle must go on, the workers must fight, Time and again theybreak loose spontaneously without asking the unions and often against theirdecisions. Sometimes the union leaders succeed in regaining control of theseactions. This means that the fight will be gradually smothered in some newarrangement between the capitalists and labor leaders. This does not meanthat without this interference such wildcat strikes will be won. They aretoo restricted to the directly interested groups. Only indirectly the fear ofsuch explosions tends to foster caution by the capitalists. But these strikesprove that the class fight between capital and labor cannot cease, and thatwh en the old forms are not practicabie any more, the workers spontaneouslytry out and develop new forms of action. In these actions revolt againstcapital is also revolt against the old organizational forms.

IIl.

The aim and task of the working class is the abolition of capitalism.Capitalism in its highest development, with its ever deeper economie crises,its imperialism, its arrnaments, its world wars, threatens the wor kers withmisery and destruction. The proletarian class fight, the resistance and revoltagainsr these conditions, must go on till capitalist domination is overthrownand capitalism is destroyed.

Capitalism means that the productive apparatus is in the hands of theCapitalists because they are the masters of the means of production, and henceof the products, they can seize the surplus value and exploit the werkingclass. Only when the working class itself is master of the megns of productiondoes exploitation cease. Then the workers entirely control their conditions oflife. The production of everything necessary for life is the common task ofthe community of workers, which is th en the community of mankind. Thisproduct ion is a collective process. First each factory, each large plant is acollective of workers, combining their efforts in an organized way. Moreover,the totality of world production is a coHective process ; a11 the separate

147

factories have to be combined into a totality of production. Hence, when theworking class takes possession of the means of production, it has at the sametime to create an organization of production.

There are many who think of the proletarian revolution in terms of theformer revolutions of the middle class, as a series of consecutive phases: first,conquest of government and instaUment of a new governmen~, t?en expro-priation of the capitalist class by law, and then a new orgarnzation .of theprocess of production. But such events could lead only to some kind ofstate capitalism. As the proletariat rises to dominanee it develops simultane-ously its own organization and the forms of the new economie order. Thesetwo develop~ents are inseparable and form the process of social revolution.W orking class organization into a st rong unity capable of united mas~ acti~nsalready means revolution, because capitalism can rule only unorgamzed 10-

dividuals. When these organized masses stand up in mass fights and revolu-tionary actions, and the existing powers are paralyzed and disintegrated, then,simultaneously, the leading and regulating functions of former governmentsfaU to the workers' organizations. And the immediate task is to carry onproduction, to continue the basic process of social life. Since the revolutio-nary class fight against the bourgeoisie and its organs is inseparable from theseizure of the productive apparatus by the workers and its application to pro-duction, the same organization that unites the class for its fight also acts asthe organization of the new productive process.

It is clear th at the organization forms of trade union and political party.inherited from the period of expanding capitalism, are useless here. Theydeveloped into instruments in the hands of leaders unable and unwilling toengage in revolutionary fight. Leaders cannot mak~ revol~tions: laborleaders abhor a proletarian revolution. For the revolutionary fight the work-ers need new forms of organization in which they keep the powers of act ionin their own hands. I t is not necessary to try to construct or to imaginethese new forms· they can originate only in the practical fight of the workersthemselves. They have already originated there; we have only to look intopractice to find its beginnings everywhere where the workers are rebellingagainst the old powers.

In a wildcat strike the workers decide all matters themselves throughregular meetings. They choose strike committees as central bodies, but themembers of these committees can be recalled and replaced at any moment. Ifthe strike extends over a large number of shops, they achieve unity of act ionby larger committees consisting of delegates of all the separate shops. Suchcommittees are not bodies to make decisions according to their own opinion,and over the workers . they are sirnply messengers, communicating theopinions and wishes of 'the groups they represent, and conversely, bringing tothe shopmeetings, for discussion and decision, the opinion and arguments otthe other groups. They cannot play the roles of leaders, because they can ~emomentarily replaced by others. The workers themselves mu~t ch?o~e th.elIway, decide their actions ; they keep the entire action, with all lts difficulties,,.148

its risks, its responsibilities, in their own hands. And when the strike is overthe committees disappear.

The only example of a modern industrial working class as the movingforce of a political revolution were the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.Here the wor kers of each factory chose delegates, and the delegates of all thefactories together formed the "soviet", the council where the political situa-tion and necessary actions were discussed. Here the opinions of the factorieswere collected, their desires harmonized, their decisions formulated. But thecouncils, though astrong directing influence for revolutionary educationthrough action, were not commanding bodies. Sometimes a whole councilwas arrested and reorganized with new delegates ; at times, when the author-ities were paralyzed by a general strike, the soviets acted as alocal govern-ment, and delegates of free professions joined them to represent their fieldof work. Here we have the organization of the workers in revolutionaryaction, though of course only imperfectly, groping and trying for newmethods. This is possible only when all the workers with all their forcesparticipate in the action, when their very existence is at stake, when theyactually take part in the decisions and are entirely devoted to the revolutio-nary fight.

Af ter the revolution this council organization disappeared. The prole-tarian centers of big industry were small islands in an ocean of primitiveagricultural society where capitalistic development had not yet begun. Thetask of initiating capitalism fell to the Communist party. Simultaneously,political power centered in its hands and the soviets were reduced to subordi-nate organs with only nominal powers.

The old forms of organization, the trade union and political partyand the new form of councils (soviets}, belong to different phases in thedevelopment of society and have different functions. The first has to securethe position of the working class among the other classes within capitalismand belongs to the period of expanding capitalism. The latter has to con-quer complete dominanee for the workers, to destroy capitalism and its classdivisions, and belongs to the period of declining capitalism. In a rising andprosperous capitalism council organization is impossible because the workersare entirely occupied in ameliorating their conditions of life, which is possibleat th at time through trade unions and politica] action. In a decaying crisis-ridden capitalism these are useless and faith in them can only hamper the in,crease of self action by the masses. In such times of heavy tension andgrowing revolt against misery, when strike movements spread over wholecountries and strike at the roots of capitalist power, or when following warsor political catastrophes the government authority crumbles and the massesact, the old organizational forms fail against the new forms of self-activity ofthe masses.

IV.Spokesmen of socialist or communist parties often admit that, in revolu-

tion, organs of self-action by the masses are useful in destroying the old do-mination; but then they say these have to yield to parliamentary democracy

149

in order to organize the new society. Let us compare the basic principles otboth forms of political organization of society.

Original democracy in small towns and districts was exercised by theassembly of all the citizens. With the big population of modern towns andcountries th is is impossible. The people can express their will only by choos-ing delegates to some central body that represents them all. The delegatesfor parliamentary bodies are free to act, to decide, to vote, to govern aftertheir own opinion ; by "honor and conscience" as it is often called in solemnterms.

The council delegates, however, are bound by mandate ; they are sentsirnply to ~xpress the opinions of the workers' groups who sent them. Theymay be called back and replaced at any moment. Thus the workers whogave them the mandate keep the power in their own hands.

On the other hand, members of parliament are chosen for a fixednumber of years: only at the polls are the citizens masters - on this one daywhen they choose their delegates. Once th is day has passed, their power hasgone and the delegates are independent, free to act for a term of yearsaccording to their own "conscience", restricted only by the knowledge thatafter th is period they have to face the voters anew; but then they count oncatching their votes in a noisy election campaign, bombing the confusedvoters with slogans and demagogie phrases, Thus not the voters but theparliamentarians are the real masters who decide polities, And the votersdo not even send persons of their own choice as delegates ; they are presentedto them by the political parties. And then, if we suppose th at people couldselect and send persons of their own choice, these persons would not form thegovernment : in parliamentary democracy the legislative and the executivepowers are separated. The real government dominating the people is formedby a bureaucracy of officials so far removed from the people's vote as to bepractically independent. That is how it is possible that capitalistic dominaneeis maintained through general suffrage and parliamentary democracy. Thisis why in capitalistic countries, where the majority of the people belongs tothe working class, th is democracy cannot lead to a conquest of politicalpower. For the working class parliamentary democracy is a sham democracy,whereas council representation is real democracy: the direct rule of thewor kers over their own affairs.

Parliamentary democracy is the political form in which the different im-portant interests in a capitalist society exert their influence upon government.The delegates represent certain classes: farmers, merchants, industrialists,workers ; but they do not represent the common will of their voters. Indeed,the voters of a district have no common will; they are an assembly of in-dividuals, capitalists, workers, shopkeepers, by chance living at the same place,having partly opposing interests.

Council delegates, on the other hand, are sent out by a homogeneousgroup to express its common will. Councils are not only made up of workers,having common class interests ; they are a natural group, working togetheras the personnel of one factory or section of a large plant, and are in close

",.150

=

dai~y contact with each other, having the same adversary, having to decidethel~ common actions as fellow workers in which they have to act in unitedfashion : not only on the questions of strike and fight, but also in the neworganization of production. Council representation is not founded upon themeaningless grouping of adjacent villages or districts, but upon the naturalgrouping of wor kers in the process of production, the real basis of society.

However, councils must not be confused with the so-called corporativerepresentation which is propagated in fascist countries. This is a representa-tion .of the di~erent pro~essions or trades (masters and workers combined),considered as fixed constrtuents of society. This form belongs to a medievalsociety with fixed classes and guilds, and in its tendency to petrify interestgroups it is even worse than parliamentarism, where new groups and newinterests, rising up in the development of capitalisrn soon find their expressionin parliament and government.

Council representation is entirely different because it is the representationof a fighting rev~lut~onary class. It represents working class interests only,and prevents capitalist delegates and capitalist interests from participation.It denies the right of existence to the capitalist dass in society and tries toeliminate them as capitalists by taking the means of production away fromthem. When in the progress of revolution the workers must take up thefunctions of organizing society the same council organization is their in-strument. This means that the workers' councils th en are the organs of thedictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship of the proletariat is not ashrewdly devised voting system artificially excluding capitalists and middleclass members from the polls. I t is the exercise of power in society by thenaturalorgans of the workers, building up the productive apparatus as thebasis of society. In these organs of the workers, consisting of delegates oftheir various branches in the process of production, there is no place forrobbers or exploiters standing outside productive work. Thus the dictator-ship of the working class is at the same time the most perfect democracy, thereal workers' democracy, excluding the vanishing class of exploiters.

v.The adherents of the old forms of organization exalt democracy as the

only right and just political form, as against dictatorship, an unjust form.Marxism knows nothing of abstract right or justice; it explains the politicalforms in which mankind expresses its feelings of political right, as con-sequences of the economie structure of society. By the Marxian theory wecan find also the basis of the difference between parliamentary democracyand council organization. As middle class democracy and proletarian democ-racy they reflect the different character of these two classes anti their economiesystems.

Middle class democracy is founded upon a society consisting of a largenumber of independent small producers. They want a government to takecare of their common interests : public security and order, proteetion of com-merce, uniform systems of weight and money, administering of law and

15.1

justice. AU these things are necessary in order that everybody can do hisbusiness in his own way. Private business takes the whole attention, formsthe life interests of everybody, and those political factors are, thougnnecessary, only secondary and demand only a small part of their attention.The chief content of social life, the basis of existence of society, the pro-duction of all the goods necessary for life, is divided up into the privatebusiness of the separate citizens, hence it is natural that it takes nearly alltheir time, and th at polities, their collective affair, providing only for aux-iliary conditions, is a subordinate matter. Only in middle class revolutionarymovements do people take to the streets. But in ordinary times polities areleft to a small group of specialists, politicians, whose life-work consists just oftaking care of these general, political conditions of middle class business.

The same holds true for the werkers, as long as they think only of theirdirect interests. In capitalism they work long hours, all their energy is ex-hausted in the process of exploitation, and but little mental power and freshthought is left them. Wage earning is the most immediate necessity of Iife:their political interests, their common interest in safeguarding their interestsas wage earners may be important but are still an accessory. So they leavethis part of their interests also to specialists, to their party politicians andtheir trade union leaders. By voting as citizens or rnembers the workers maygive some general directions, just as middle class voters may influence theirpoliticians, but only partially, because their chief attent ion must remain con-centrated upon their own work.

Proletarian democracy, under communism, depends upon just the op-posite economie conditions. It is founded not on private but on collectiveproduction. Production of the life necessities is no longer a personal business,but a collective affair. The collective affairs, formerly called political affairs,are no longer secondary, but the chief object of thought and act ion foreverybody. What was called politics in former society, a domain for spe-cialists, has become the life interest of every worker. It is not the securingof some necessary conditions of production, it is the process and the regula-tion of production itself. The separation of private and coUective affairs andinterests has ceased. A separate group or class of specialists taking care ofthe collective affairs is no longer necessary. Through their council delegateswhich link them together the producers themselves are managing their ownproductive work.

The two forms of organization are not distinguished in th at the one isfounded upon a traditional and ideological basis, and the other on thematerial productive basis of society. Both are founded upon the materialbasis of the system of production ; one on the declining system of the past, theother on the growing system of the future. Right now we are in the per~odof transition, the time of big capitalism and the beginnings of the proletananrevolution. In big capitalism the old system of production has already beendestroyed in its foundations; the large class of independent producers hasdisappeared. The main part of production is collective work of large groupsof workers ; but the control and ownership have remained in a few private

#-152

hands. This contradictory state is maintained by the strong power factors ofthe capitalists, especially the state power exerted by the governments. Thetask of the proletarian revolution is to destroy this state power; its real con-tent is the seizure of the means of production by the workers. The processof revolution is, in an alternation of actions and defeats, the building up ofthe organization of the proletarian dictatorship. which at the same time is thedissolution, step by step, of the capitalist state power. Hence it is the processof the replacement of the organization system of the past by the organiza-tion system of the future.

We are only in the beginnings of this revolution. The century of classfight behind us cannot be considered as such a beginning, only as a preamble,It developed invaluable theoretical knowiedge, it found gallant revolutionarywords in defiance of the capitalist claim of being a final social system; itawakened the workers from the hopelesness of misery. But its actual fightremained bound within the confines of capitalism, it was act ion through themedium of leaders and sought only to set easy masters in the place of hardones. Only a sudden flickering of revolt, such as political or mass strikesbreaking out against the wiU of the politicians, now and then announced thefuture of self-determined mass action. Every wildcat strike, not taking itsleaders and catchwords from the offices of parties and unions, is an indicationof this development, and at the same time a small step in its direction. AHthe existing powers in the proletarian movement, the socialist and communistparties, the trade unions, all the leaders whose activity is bound to the middleclass democracy of the past, denounce these mass actions as anarchisticdisturbances. Because their field of vision is limited to their old forms of or-ganization, they cannot see that the spontaneous actions of the workers bearin them the germs of higher forms of organization. In fascist countries,where the old middle class democracy has been destroyed, such spontaneousmass actions will be the only form of future proletarian revolt. Theirtendency will not be a restoration of the former middle class democracy butan advance in the direction of the proletarian democracy, i. e., the dictator-ship of the working class.

J. Harper

A "MARXIAN" APPROACH TO THEJEWISH QUESTION

The advocates of Zionism, orJ e wis h nationaIism, like the ad-Vocates of a11 other nationalisticideologies, approach the workers inmany ways. Recently the Poale Zionof America republished some of thewritings of Ber Borochov*, who,some 30 years ago, tried to supply') Nationalism and the Claas Struggle. A

Marxian Approach to the Jewish Prob-Iem. By Ber Borochov. Poale Zion-Zei-re of Amertea. New York, 205 PP., $1.50,

the socialistic approach to Zionism.Borochov sprang from the J ewish

intelligentsia of Russia. At the timeof his activities Jewish workers inRussia had built an -organization,(Bund), which was a Social Democ-ratie trade unionist organization andwas anti-Zionistic. It consisted ofindustrial workers who formed theirorganization af ter the pattern ofwestern European trade unionism.They had ceased to concern them-

153

selves very much with nationalproblems, and were of the opinion,that the socialist revolution alsowould solve the Jewish question.Borochov, however, thought that"one who has no national dignity canhave no class dignity." He tried toprove that Zionism is not only theonly solution for the J ewish people,but also the Marxist solution. He ob-served "the slow transition of theJ ewish masses from unproductive toproductive occupations," and wasconvineed that only in Palestine thistendency could come to its fuHestrealization. He was of the opinionthat the Jews could neither wait forthe "progress of humanity", nordepend on assimilation, but thattheir freedom from persecution anddiscrimination depended primarlyupon the national self-help of theJ ewish masses. "The national in.stinct of self-preservation latent inthe Socialist working class," hewrote, "is a healthy nationalism."Though, at the outset he conceivedth at the class interrests of the Jewishworkers remained the same as thoseof other workers, and socialism wasthe ultimate goal, the immediateneed was Zionism, and the classstruggle was to realize both.

In the process of productionvarious relations of production arise.But production itself, Borochov ar-gued, is dependent on certain con-ditions which are different in differ-ent places. These "conditions ofproduction" , which vary for geogra-phical, anthropological, and historiereasons, form the basis for his ideathat for the Jewish workers Zionismand Socialism are identical. Thenationalism of oppressed nationali-ties, he said, is peculiar, and thesystem of production of oppressednationalities is always subject to ab-normal conditions. "The conditionsof production are abnormal when anation is deprived of its territory andits organs of national preservation.Such abormal conditions tend toharmonize the inter ests of a 11members of a nation. This externalpres sure not only weakens and dis-sipates the infiuence of the con-ditions of production but also hindersthe development of the relations ofproduction and the class struggle,because the normal development of

154

the mode of production is hampered.In the course of the struggle fornational emancipation, however, theclass structure and class psychologymanifest themselves." And so hemaintained that a "genuine na-tionalism in no way obscures classconsciousness," that the building upof Palestine would rather provide areal basis for the development of theclass struggle of the J ews aimed at.a socialist society.

In Palestine, which was not. at a11an empty country or an internationalhotel as Borochov and his contempo-raries tried to believe, the Jewsfoünd an Arab feudalistic agricul-tural society with merchant capitalin the towns and ports. The im-migrating J ews were artisans of theeast European type, merchants ofwestern Europe, and representativesof financiers of London, Wa11 Street,and South America. And in additlonto these there were a newly formedproletariat of students, professionals,and inte11ectuals whç, with greatnational enthusiasni set out to workunder most primitive conditions forthe J ewish state.

Into Palestine immigrated laborand capital, but on a small scale,However, th e increasingly more"normal" conditions of productiondid not lead to a development in ac-cordance with the dreams of the left-Zionists. Nationalism did not fosterthe class struggle, on the contrary,the latter was sacrificed to the needsof the nation. Class consciousness didnot increase but tended to disappear,and the "common" interest againstthe Arabs created an almost idealharmony. Zionism in practice wasonly able to tie the Jewish workersto the interests of their exploitersand, furthermore, to the imperialisticschemes of England, which fosteredthe J ewish aspirations for its ownimperialist - strategic needs.

It is true that with the growth ofPalestine capitalism the werkingclass also increased. Scarcity oflabor brought about in the buildingand similar trades 'relatively highwages for some workers. .•..•. Other

•• ) The weekly wage rates of nine classesof urban workers in October, 1937, ad-justed to the cost of living index. leadllto the conclusion that the real wageB otthe .Jewish workera in Tel-Aviv were 68

I-

workers established co-operativeswhich functioned as building con-tractors and transportation com-panies. These conditions, however,did not foster the class struggle forsocialism, but inbued large numbersof workers with capitalist ideologyafiá red to the development of alabor bureaucracy participating inthe exploitation of the workers. TheJewish workers not only found theirold exploiters in the holy land, butthey added some new ones in ex-change for the empty promises ofreformism.

Borochov's "contribution to Marx-ism", i. e., the recognition of the im-portance of the "conditons of pro-duction" for the development of theclass struggle, so far has served onlycapitalistic a n d imperialistic in-terests. By pointing to Palestine, theZionists kept the Jewish workersfrom participating in the classstruggle; in Palestine they now pointacross the border. The Zionist solu-tion of the J ewish question lies onlyin combat with the Arabs. Underthe conditions of Palestine, Zionismcan emerge only in capitalistic garb.The Jews are obliged to he capi-talistic in order to be nationalistic,and they have to be nationalistic inorder to be Zionists. They are obligoed to be not only capitalistic, butcapitalistic in an extremely reactio-nary form. As a minority they can-not be demoeratic without damageto their own interests ; and beingland-hungry, they have to fightagamst agrarian reform, bindingthemselves with the Arab feudalistsagainst the fellahs. They are notonly reactionary themselves, but theylend force to the Arab reaction.

The last twenty years of Zionistpractice have sufficiently shown thatJewish nationalism no less than anyother nationalism has hampered the

development of the c1ass struggle. Tokeep the Jewish workers' standard ofliving on a semi-civilized level waspossible only at the expense of theArabian workers. The discriminationagainst Arab labor practiced by theJewish trade unions and the Jewishbosses did not create solidarity butnationalistic hatred among the work-ers. All the well-sounding phrasesabout solidarity with the Arab work-ers vanished when they were put totest in the strikes of 1936; instead,the Zionist labor bureaucracy suc-cessfully made the Jewish workersdefend their bosses' property. Thelabor bureaucracy and the nat ionalpeculiarities prevented th e un-employed from fighting for re lief,because otherwise the British mightstop immigration. The scarcity ofcapital in Palestine agriculture, ledto the creation of co-operatives ofstarving pioneers, the so called "com-munes" (Kvutsot) , it was the meritof Borochovists to name these co-operatives the "socialist sector" ofPalestine's economy, and to hailthem as "outposts of socialism". Buthere also the Zionists only hidebehind attractive slogans the capita-listic nature and the exploitingcharacter of these institutions.

Zionism can serve only capitalism.Borochov himself, at first only in.terested in the Zionist movement tofoster the class struggle later forgothis original intentions and spoke infavor of class collaboration. Nolonger did he address the proletariat,but "the entire Jewish population,"which should "not yield to the notionthat the Jews disappear among na-tions and alien cultures." Notwith-standing t h a teven an "inter-nationalist" like Leon Trotsky statestoday "that the Jewish problem mustbe solved through territorial con-centration", nationalism today canbe only chauvinistic, can only lead toJewish fascism which openly ad-vocates struggle against the Arabs.And the nonfascists a!!cept thisstruggle by maintaining silence oruttering hypocritical phrases. Andonly the recognition of their weakposition hinders them from finding aplace among the "aggressor nations,"and forces them to play servant toEnglish imperialism. Today there ex-

155

Per cent 01 the waaea of workers in Lon-don, and that the wagea of the Arabs;ere about 10 per cent less tha.n the wagesor- Jewish workers. However. these nine

~~as8e8 of urban wor kers, responsible forb " ~bove wage index, belong all to tàe

ulldtng trade and are not as is of ten:h8umed, representative of the waae rates ot

e working claas 8S a whole. The index, 80~ften proudly demonstrated. is also not trueIn 80 far as it excludes in the eost of livingtbe. factor of rent. whicb, owtng to th ••P~~9~~n:.Ou8ing .shortaKe, is very bhrh -In

ists a report of a royal commrssronth at recommends the partitioning ofPalestine and the creation of anautonomous Jewish state. Whetherthis proposal will ever be realized,the fact remains that the Jews them-selves cannot fulfill the Zionist de-sires, but are compe11ed to stay alliesto English imperialism.

It is true that the furthering ofcapitalism in Palestine brought aboutby Zionism and the sharpening ofcapitalistic antagonisms are "revolu-tionizing", but only as the whole ofcapitalism is revolutionizing; it is ofno concern to the working cla ss. Thesharpening of capitalist contradie-tions certainly serves the revolu-tionary interests of the workingclass, however, as the proletariat hasto make an international revolution,it cannot support nationalistic issues,it can foster neither the Arabs nor

T~E WORKERS' ALLIANCE

the Jews. lt has to remain immuneto a11 nationalistic infection andmust concentrate on the conflictbetween capital and labor as deter-mined by the relations of production.There is no national solution for theJ ewish workers, as there is nopossibility ever to find peace withinthe other countries. The J ewishquestion is unsolvable wit h i ncapitalistic barbarism of today.There is no sense in closing our eyesto reality, difficult as it is, yes, im-possible as it is in many in stances toprevent the special atrocities againstthe Jewish population, Palestine isno solution. Capitalism means theprolongation of this barbaric situ-ation. The task of the jewish work-er is the task of a11 wor kers, to endthe international s y s tem ofcapitalistic exploitation.

The recent convention of the Workers' Alliance (W. A.) held inCleveland was another painful demonstration of the absence of an unemploy-ed movement in America. Though it is true that the W. A. today is theonly unemployed organization of any importance, it is also true that thisorganization has just as much relation to the jobless as the Salvation Armyhas to the hobos.

Different capitalistic groups struggle for governmental control. Anythinggoes in this light. The anti-New Dealers label everybody a "Red" whosupports or sympathizes with the present Administration, though they arequite aware of the nonsense of their charges. The Administration assuresitself of the votes of large masses through its liberalist ic attitudes and createsfor itself willing instruments to carry through a capitalistic policy more inline with permanent depression conditions and new imperialistic expectations.The centralization of economie and political power proceeds by way ofstruggle. Many capitalist interests are hurt or eliminated in this developmentand try to check it to save themselves. They den ounce the N ew Deal andall supporting groups including labor organizations as leading to Bolshevism.This in turn farces the New Dealers to continue to rely on the labor move-ment and to induce this labor movement to demonstrate continiously that itaspires toward a goal diametrically opposite to the true gaar' of labor. Thelabor move ment becomes a 100% capitalistic American institution. The riftin the camp of the bourgeoisie gives energetic labor leaders new chances toprosper ; the booms recently experienced in political and economie groupswere reflected in the boom within the W. A.

156

With the history of the W. A. we have dealt before", lts fourthnational convention only reestablished the fact that this organization is asmall, but useful instrument in the hands of the Administration. However,one hand washes the other, or as Selden Rodman proudly described this har-monious situation in the Nation of Sept. 10, 1938:"G' d trve us ecen ,,:ages and working conditions," says the Workers' Allianceto the W. P. A. (in ef!ect), "and we'11 do your lobbying for you; we'l1 seethat Congress approPrI~t~s the money and th at the states do their part."An? from ,,~arry H~Pkl~ s headquarters comes the reply (in effect):: "Goto tt, boy~. Y?U WI11fm~ hardly a man in the huge government agerrcywho hasn t a fnendly feelmg for the union; not one without respect for itecompetent leader."

At present the W. A. is scarcely concerned with unemployment andrelief. The spending program and the W. P. A. deterrnines her policies.

The convention dealt with the following issues:**

1.) Continuation o~ the W. P. A.; 3,500,000 jobs during the next year;2.) 1~prov~me.nts m the W. P. A. to perform more socia11y necessary work;3.) Liber~hzatIon of the requirements for W. P. A. employment;4.) Securm~ fro~ C~ngress and Administration an increase in W. P. A.w~ges; 5.) Llberallzation of the Social Security Act; 6.) Establishment ofa Just system of labor relation on the W. P. A.; 7.) The massing of theunemplored together with other progressive forces for the success of theprop:esslve New D~al candi?at~s in the 1938 election. This must be a majoractivity of our entire organization between this convention and November 7.'8.) 1n~reas~ of ~embership and press circulation. And last, the cementin~of relationships with the organized labor movement.

As regards the jobless on direct relief, the Executive Board of the W.A.had no more to offer than the following phrase:

"While opposing absolutely the substitution of the dole for works programs,th~ W: A. did, nevertheless, push for a substantion appropriation for directrehef m the 1938 Relief Act."

. !he histor~ of the W. A. can be descibed as the shift from unemployedact~vlt~ to parhamentary activity, notwithstanding a few samples of directaction m the East. Even these few exarnples of action were directed to stateasse~blies an~ court houses to impress upon the workers the importance ofhavmg the nght people in the administrative offices. The authorities weregrateful for this service, and as early as in 1936, writes Nel Anderson*** ofthe W. P. A. Administration, the W. A. delegates participating in a hunger-march." 1were no onger repu~sed as were earlier job marchers on Washington. In-stead, they were permltted to use the luxurious auditorium of the newly com-p.leted Departmant of Labor building. They made speeches, passed resolu-bons, sent comml~tees .t~ visit representatives of the Administration and~ongress, and, h~vmg fm.lshed their business, went their way ... Working fromts headquarter m Washmgton, the Alliance concerns itself with putting

pressure. on Congress a~d on a11 administrative officials who have anythingto do with work or rehef."

*S "0 . t'ee rgamza ions of the Unemployed" in Living Marxism No 4"Work. Sept. 24, 1938. . .***The Right to Work. Modern Age Books. 1938; p. 115.

157

I

Then as now the "major acnvity of the entire organization" serves elect ionneeds, for, says the W. A. Manual of 1936:"The victories won on the picket line, by everyday struggle of the unemploy-ed, have too often been turned into defeat by crooked politicians and anti-lab or legislators. We have learned through sad experience that we must takean active part in the election of public officials, and that we must hold themresponsible for acting to our best interests."

For this reason, for example, the W. P. A. division of the W. A. of GreaterN ew York enrolled as part of the American Labor Party, which supportedand helped elect such "straight" politicians as Mayor La Guardia and DistrictAttorney Dewey in November 1937. However, the election of "straight"politicians and the keeping of the New Dealers in office has not preventedthe increasing misery of th unemployed, has not secured "the victories wonon the pieker line;" it has nly destroyed all kinds of real activity on thepart of the workers.

Pay slashes as great as 20 per cent for large numbers of W. P. A.workers throughout the country were reported in the middle of October,1938. This was accomplished by so-called re-classification of positions. Someoccupations were moved from one skill group to a lower one: the work doneremained the same, but the wages were cut. Concerning the position of theunemployed on direct relief, the American Association of Social Workersdeclared in November, 1937, in an open letter to Chicago citizens, that"human beings are forced to live in quarters unfit for cattle; that less isspent for the meal of many a person on relief than for the meal of a dogin alocal animal shelter. Consumption of food in relief families is farbelow the safe level to maintain health and decency."

A year later, the situation had grown worse; and it was said* that "relief iscrumbling under the impact of the recession like a town rocked by a series ofearthquakes. "

Nevertheless, all th at the W. A. has to offer in th is situation is the pro-posal to put the right people into the right offices, although the people whoare now cutting wages and reducing direct relief represent the New Deal andhave been elected with the help of the W. A. to "secure the victories won onthe picket line."

The reasons for the neglect of the unemployed on direct relief and forthe hampering of all real unemployed activity through the W. A. are easy tounderstand. Like any other organization of any size the W. A. is first ofall a business enterprise. There is more money in the W. P. A. than in therelief stations. Wages ranging from 40 to 100 dollar monthly are no doubtmiserable : however, small animals too provide manure. A hundred thousandhalf a dollar pieces each month are nothing to be laughed at. Unernploymenton direct relief have difficulty in paying dues regularly. It is relativelyeasy to make W. P. A. workers understand th at their favorable positionsdepend to a large extent on their cash loyality to the W. A. With the ad-herenee to a few "union principles" the W. A. hopes today on many W. P.A. projects to have a voice in the hiring and firing of workers. They have

*The Nation, August 29, 1938.158

wormed themselves into administrative positions and use them to their ownadvantage. With the recognition that the W. P. A. is probably here to staymany labor organizers show a real interest in organizing the unemployed.The A. F. of L. as weIl as the C. I. 0., not to speak of smaller politicalgroupings, plan or attempt at present to launch W. P. A. project workersunions in competition with the W. A.* If it is not more, at least it is goodbusiness.

People still respect the written word, the platform phrase, the swivelchair, impressive institutions, they still refuse to believe that before peoplecan think of anything else they first have to eat, that the basis of allprograms and philosophies is people with open mouths hoping to be fed. TheW. A. is no exception in th is respect. It functions exclusively for a groupof people determined to make a living in other ways than the stupid urn-formity provided for the workers and the corner grocers. This group hasrecognized that in order to make its way to the front it is not enough tohave ambitions, but that there is needed an organization which backs it upin its efforts "to play a part." A college education is not enough to lead tothe satisfaction of the needs of the body and the spleens of the brain, one hasto be a Hitler in miniature to be respected and acknowledged by the rulers ofsociety. The dues of the workers mean paid officials, organizers, an officestaff, a regular press, enthusiastic stenographers, a fuller life for romanticnatures and a better suit for engineers with a social, i. e. a bolshevik con-science. 100,000 fifty-cent pieces are a beginning, they create enoughidealism for attempts to double th is amount by intensive organization work toallow for aiO per cent increase in the number of officials.

There can be no doubt th at the W. A. is really interested in a largergovernmental spending program, interested in higher wa ges for the W. P. A.work:ers and not disinterested in the betterment of the relief clients. Thereexists a reaI identity of interests of the leaders and members of the W. A.The welfare of the one depends on the income of the other. However, thereare two ways to satisfy those interests : the way of force and the way ofservice. The first will only be used by people who have nothing to looseand all to gain. The second is preferred by people who want to make securepositions already gained. By traveling the first road workers cannot escaperecognizing that the workers themselves are all important in the struggle,th at all depends on their militancy, their solidarity, their initiative. The morethey do for themselves, the more they learn to disregard the paid mediator,the professional leaders, the enthusiastic stenographer. If they lose or winthe fight, their respect for leaders will decrease proportionally to their ownexperience. However, the road of service is the road preferred by all laborleaders. Wage inceases were always accompanied by greater exploitation.Exceptionally high wages of some workers were always brought àbout by ex-ceptionally low wages of other workers. The W. A. steps forward by wayof destroying the unity of interests on the part of the unemployed, by con-trolling aU activities of the pauperized by erganizing part of them, and by

·We will deal with these trends in a following issue of Living Marxism.

159

irritating the rest of the jobless. The W. A. found itself perfectly fitted tothe N ew Deal scheme, it realized that the organization would gain more bycollabo rat ion with the Administration than by cumbersome struggles withlocal relief administrations. The organization became everything, the un-employed themselves were reduced to the role of a claque to increase the im-portance of sensitive engineers and genial organizers. The organization hassomething to sell, something which is still of use to the Administration, andas long as the market is good, business will continue. It sells the possiblemilitancy and the desires of the unemployed to the government in order tohelp the latter to bring its capitalistic plans to realization.

Certainly the W. . is not only interested in the welfare of its members,it is also interested in s own growth, provided that such a growth does notconflict with the policy of collaboration and with the bureaucratie rule es-stablished in the organization. However, a growth of the organization intoa real mass force pressing for act ion will not only end the easy road of classcollaboration, it will also endanger the present and future position of thebureaucracy. The latter will see to it th at its own organization never takeson proportions which raay endanger present policies and the rule over it bythe present leadership. It will hold its organization in bonds to stop a realunemployment niovement and there-in consists . its best service to capitalistsociety. The owners of the W. A. will rather smash the whole organizationthan to watch it grow into a force able to put up a real fight for their owninterests and so diminish the need for mediators and professional leaders. Aslong as organizations like the W. A. exist, there is little hope for the or-ganizing of the unemployed masses. The function of this organization isthe prevention of organized action on the part of the unemployed masses.That wor kers nevertheless belong to th is organizationn is not to be wonderedat, they also belong to churches and other institutions which stop them fromacting in their own interest by offering them eventual salvation through theendeavors of others. Actions are transfered into hopes, peace is secured.

Workers have to begin to realize th at the realism of the present labororganizations and the W. A., which recognized the present class forces andadopts its policies according to given possibilities, is only realistic in regardto the organizations themselves, and entirely illusionary in regard to the needsof the working class. If it is possible by taking advantage of rifts within thebourgeoisie to better the positions of a minority of the working class andprovide jobs for labor leaders, it is impossible to satisfy in such marmer thereal needs of the workers and the unemployed. The W. A. will never beable to organize the unemployed or to wage a struggle along with the un-ernployed. It will always hamper any real attempt on the part of the workersto escape their present helpless situarion, it will have to be destroyed in newattempts of the working and unemployed masses to free themselves in orderto proceed toward independent working class actions. *

*In a foUowing issue we will offer our own proposals and suggestions for anunemployed activity in the interest of the jobless.160 ~