No Conspiracy . . . (1973)

From issue number 3 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Atlantic Monthly prints our letter to editor (March, 1973)

Sir:

In “Laud" (January Atlantic), David Black describes the World Socialist Party as ". . . a pure Marxist conspiracy so innocent that they were not banned from agitating on Boston Common during World War II.”

Not so. There is a World Socialist Party, with headquarters in Boston. Furthermore, we certainly did “agitate" on Boston Common for many years prior to, during, and subsequent to World War II. We were, in fact, the only avowedly socialist political party in the United States with all-out opposition to all belligerents in World War II, a statement we can document.

David Black does us an injustice by labeling us a “conspiracy." We have always proclaimed our aim: complete abolition of the wages, prices, profits system and the immediate establishment of world socialism — and this object has always been emblazoned on all of our official literature, including our Journal The Western Socialist. Our position is based upon political action and we advocate as the means to our end the ballot and all other democratic procedures. We have always rejected the advocacy of violence or of any action based upon minority, "vanguard" organization.

Furthermore, we were not included on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations during and following World War II, not because of any supposed “Innocence" on our part, but because we could not possibly be identified as friendly to any foreign power.

There was, nevertheless, an attempt made to ban us and other groups from free speech on Boston Common during World War II. The attempt fizzled and resulted in a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that no authority had the right to issue permits to speak on the Common, simply because such right existed (and still exists) at all times providing there is no incitement to riot.

Harry Morrison

National Secretary

Letter to The Western Socialist (1973)

From issue number 2 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Dear Sir:

I received and thank you for your letter, and the copies of “The Western Socialist." You wrote in the letter. “ . . . we insist that the image De Leonism holds of the nature of a socialist society is not consistent with revolutionary Marxism."

In the program, “Stravinsky Remembered," on WGBH-TV on Feb. 26, when someone accused the distinguished composer, the late Igor Stravinsky, of changing his mind on an important matter, Stravinsky replied that he had not changed his mind, but that he had gained additional knowledge. Thus, it was with De Leonlst and pre-De Leonist Marxism; and, thus, the Socialist Labor Party can call itself Marxist as well as De Leonist.

In your "The Western Socialist," No. 4 — 1967, article, “The Socialist Labor Party & Religion.“ you quarrel with the views of the SLP in regard to religion. If I should want to learn the facts about plumbing, I would speak to a plumber; if I desire to learn the facts about Socialism, I consult a true Socialist; and if I wish to learn about religion. I similarly would consult a clergyman. Karl Marx is not a proper person to consult about religion. He was an expert in regard to economics, true; but he had little if any Insight into the true meaning of religion, as he was not a devout believer in any religion. As did many German Jews of the time. Marx's family, for reasons of expediency alone, had renounced its Jewish religious heritage, and had ostensibly adopted Christianity. Therefore, Marx was neither devout nor warmly devoted as a Jew or as a Christian; and, therefore, he cannot well be considered an authority in regard to the nature and meaning of religion. Marx’s words on economics bear truth and authority; his words on religion are merely his unfounded personal opinion.

The World Socialist Party Declaration of Principles, number six, states, in part: "The working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government." When you advocate "conquest of the powers of government." without utilizing the country’s electoral process of the ballot, you become unjustifiable, and thus conspiratorial, subversive, and beyond the law. This is not true of the Socialist Labor Party.

As for your organizing “consciously." you will agree that the workers are mere wage slaves; and. thus, they are subject to the crippling and emasculating evil effects of the slavery. Aristotle wrote: “The slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority; and the child has, but it is immature . . slaves stand even more in need of admonition than children." ("Politics:' Bk. I: Ch. 13.)

I believe this to be the chief obstacle to the success of the Socialist Movement of today. This does not mean that the Socialist Movement cannot succeed, but that it must grow through its assimilation of additional and more fundamental knowledge.

The French philosopher and author, Jean Jacques Rousseau, wrote: "Our country cannot well subsist without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.”

Finally, Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, stated: "A man that seeks truth and loves it must be reckoned precious to any human society.”

I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Louis Frankel 

Response:

The copies of The Western Socialist to which our correspondent alludes had articles dealing with the Socialist Labor Party in which the following points, among others, were demonstrated:

(1) The SLP picture of socialism in operation, viz an "industrial union government,” is not in harmony with the goal of scientific socialism.

(2) The SLP attitude on Religion. i.e., that it is a "private matter” is inconsistent with an understanding of the Marxist Materialist Conception of History.

Mr. Frankel chose to ignore the other points and to answer the first with a quotation from Igor Stravinsky, the second with that old saw about the cobbler sticking to his last, and bolster his overall weak case with citations from the writings of others that are strictly in the category of non sequitors.

(1) To begin with, the gaining of additional knowledge and its application is fine providing such knowledge is not in conflict with one's original intentions. The aim of world socialism (and socialism on a national level is a bad dream) is the abolition of class society and the ending of the nation state. The goal of DeLeonlsm is the changing of governments, congresses and parliaments from geographical to an industrial union orientation. Not that the SLP is altogether consistent or sound on that policy, either, as their long drawn confusion over the nature of the Soviet economy and sympathy with it bear witness. [1] World Socialism must bring with it the change of government. itself, into an administration over the affairs of man, rather than over man, himself. And such a society could only bring with it a condition in which the very need of unions - of any sort — would be inconceivable

(2) The Marxist Joseph Dietzgen, in the Preface to his The Positive Outcome of Philosophy had an apropos answer to this gem of wisdom, to wit:

“If any one should feel justified in telling me: 'Shoemaker, stick to your last!’ I would reply to him with Karl Marx: 'Your non plus ultra professional wisdom became enormously foolish from the moment when the watchmaker Watt invented the steam engine, the barber Arkwright, the loom, the jeweller Fulton, the steamship.' “

But to believe that one must be a clergyman to understand the origins and purposes of Religion is truly to have the faith "of a little child” which is what, the clergy is wont to tell us, is needed to accept the Scriptures. We do not know whether or not Mr. Frankel is actually a member of the Socialist Labor Party but we must note that his faith in the word of "God” as relayed by the various clergy is not inconsistent with membership in that organization and it speaks volumes for the "scientific” attitude of the American DeLeonists.

And now Mr. Frankel leaves the area of defense and goes on the attack! He notes that our Principle No. 6 calls for conscious and political conquest of the powers of government, suggests that we do not call for the utilization of the "electoral process of the ballot.” and charges us with being “conspiratorial.” Alas. The superficiality of his study of socialism, generally, is only matched by the lack of attention he gave our journals in particular. We have never advocated any other means to our end but the ballot (although we never support non- or anti-socialist candidates or measures). In fact, one of our Party Rules states emphatically that one who advocates violence in the struggle for socialism cannot be a member of the World Socialist Party.

Nor does he help his case against us by quoting Aristotle. For Aristotle lived in a different era, an era in which slaves were not a potentially revolutionary class, a class that could have an interest in a higher society. It is a different story with the slaves of capitalism, the wage slaves. They are the "grave diggers" of capitalism and of class society in toto. Chattel Slave society, under which Aristotle lived, was a dead end social system that was by no means universal at the time and which created no revolutionary class. But just as Feudalism created the instrument of its own overthrow—the bourgeoisie—so has Capitalism created its own revolutionary class, the modem proletariat, or working class. Mr. Frankel’s problem is that he has his eras mixed. In fact, he might find it profitable to spend more time on the socialist classics than he seems to spend with classical and bourgeois philosophers.

Harry Morrison

[1] See the Western Socialist, No. 6—1962.

Are we Utopians? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

A common response to the case of the World Socialist Movement is the word utopian! It is uttered with a note of finality as though it needs no elaboration. "You are utopian !” they tell us, and whether they are one-hundred percent defenders of what is called the American way of life or blood-and-thunder type, self-styled, revolutionists they regard us with an expression of pity and usually change the subject. The anti-establishment radical and the defender of the status quo are, on this subject, allies because they are both convinced that our goal of a world without nations, without buying and selling, without wage labor and capital — employers and employees — is an impossible dream in our lifetime, the lifetimes of our children, grandchildren and possibly our great and ever-so-great grandchildren. It is utopian, they tell us. to feel otherwise.

Well, we are not so certain that our detractors of either variety know quite what they are talking about, that they really understand the meaning of the term utopian as applied to the advocates of world socialism. For the word does have a definite meaning and utopianism did have a definite role to play at an earlier period in the development of capitalism. In fact, it still has at least a debatable reason for existence in lowly-developed areas of the capitalist world. We refer to the organisation of colonies such as New Harmony, Brook Farm, Oneida, and a host of others in early America; to the kibbutzim of modern, but industrially weak Israel; to all of the attempts in the past and the present here, there and everywhere to build islands of peaceful cooperation in a violent sea of capitalism. This is utopianism, and whether it is the idealist who seeks to get away from it all by retiring to a kibbutz or even to a hippie community, or the so-called socialists and communists who believe that socialism — even communism, as they like to put it — can be built within the borders of a nation it is they, not us. who are the utopians.

There will be no peace for them as long as they exist in a capitalist world and to blame this on people of ill-will, on reactionaries, on Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives is to indulge in more escapism from reality, in more utopianism. The pressures of capitalist economics and the pressures of the capitalist state are all around and will allow no peace, no escape, no utopianism. Do we have to dwell on this point?

We are not utopians. We are hard-headed, practical, scientific socialists. We know that capitalism and the suffering for most of the population that goes with it cannot be abolished simply by changing the organization from private ownership to state ownership. Nor can capitalism be improved for most of the population by passing reform legislation in congress or parliament or whatever it is called. Nor does It make sense to retire to some backwoods area where one can live a desperate, hand-to-mouth existence while one is free to toll from sunup to sundown on infertile soil even if the capitalist state were to maintain a complete hands-off attitude, an unlikely probability.

This is not our concept of freedom. Friends! Fellow-workers! There is a world of potential plenty for everybody who inhabit the earth. And it is there for the taking. How do we take it? Not by idle, utopian dreaming. Not by the encouragement of nations whether designated capitalist, communist, or anything else. The way to abolish poverty, war, hatreds based upon skin color and ethnic background is to organize on the political field to abolish nations, to abolish buying and selling, to abolish wage labor and capital, to introduce a world society based upon production for use, not for sale. Anything short of this goal is utopian, will not work. Do you really need more evidence than the history of the last fifty years? Let’s organize now, not for more utopianism but for world socialism.

Are we “Commies”? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Whenever a socialist begins to present his case, especially if it is with somebody who has not been exposed to the case for scientific socialism, he is almost invariably greeted by at least one of his audience, with the epithet: "Commie!” For there are some who have the knack of listening without following what is being said They can listen to the champions of the Soviet Union or of Cuba and yet fail to see the basic similarity between what these people advocate and what we already have in America. They can also listen for a few minutes. at least, to a scientific socialist and somehow manage to confuse what he is saying with what they thought they heard from the lips of the so-called Communists or whatever they might call themselves.

So let us see if we can put to rest that fallacy, at least for those who will pay attention for a mere four minutes or so to what we are saying.

Let us remind you of some happenings you should certainly have known of if you were around at the time. If you were too young during the days of WW II, or not yet born, there are books and articles dealing with the cooperation and friendship between the bolshevik-style Communists on the one hand, and the professed champions of "democratic" capitalism on the other, readily available.

When the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain were wining, dining, and dealing with Joseph Stalin in the Kremlin, the World Socialist Party and its Companion Parties in other countries were openly opposing the war as a carnage not worth the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood. When the secret police of the Soviet Union and the secret police of the United States (the forerunner of the present CIA) were acting in unison, we were speaking out and writing articles attacking the War. When widely-known political leaders such as Wendell Willkie and widely heralded labor-haters such as Eddie Rickenbacker, the aviator hero, were extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union and of kindly old "Uncle" Joe Stalin — both through written and spoken word — we of the World Socialist Party were denouncing the entire Bolshevik Movement as a menace to working-class interests.

When the Communist Party was recruiting for the war effort, selling Victory Bonds, waving the flag and singing the national anthem of America, as well as that of Russia, we of the World Socialist Party were speaking from our rostrum on Boston Common as our comrades in England spoke in Hyde Park; continuing to urge our fellow workers to organize for the abolition of capitalism everywhere — the basic cause of war.

We were not called "Commies” in those days. It was obvious we were not "Commies” because we were calling for world socialism, not defending Western and Russian capitalism.

We did have our troubles, though, and it wasn’t easy to carry on. The Canadian Government went so far as banning our journal, The Western Socialist, within its borders, for a time, because of our articles that exposed the war for what it was, a fight for supremacy between and among rival capitalist nations. We were harassed, but we continued to speak and to publish.

No. We are not Communists in the popularly accepted meaning of that much-maligned word. We do not support or sympathize with Russian or Chinese or Cuban or any other state capitalism We are communists, though, In the classical meaning of that word. We are scientific socialists who advocate the complete and immediate abolition of the wages, prices, profits, money system in all its forms, everywhere and the immediate introduction of a system of production for use. We urge you to investigate our case.