train
dict |
|---|
{
"content": "As the masses lose faith in the Amsterdamers and social democratic leaders, the ruling class sets proportionately less store upon the coalition with its socialist brothers so indispensable and invaluable to it during the critical period following the collapse of the war. The bourgeoisie now begins to deal out kicks and blows to its friends of yesterday; but the worse treatment the social imperialists receive at the hands of the bourgeoisie, the greater the emphasis with they proclaim their love for the coalition with the exploiters of the proletariat. And with good reason. Scheidemann, Noske, Hilferding, & Co. know very well that their positions in the labor movement are irretrievably lost. Therefore they continue to permit themselves to be used for the purposes of the ruling class, in a more despicable manner than ever, and finally, they will be thrown over by the bourgeoisie as useless tools. The social democrats being of no further use to the bourgeoisie, the ruling class is now raising a fresh guard in the form of the Fascist movement, hoping that this will defend the interests of the exploiters even better than the social democrats. Fascism at the same time represents the mobilization of all the remaining political reserves of the counter-revolution. The danger of Fascism, which is receiving every possible support from the dominant party, is exceedingly great. In order systematically and steadily to make its preparations for the inevitable, protracted and decisive struggle with the proletariat, the bourgeoisie is destroying all the so-called rights and liberties said to have been won by democracy, and is applauded in this by all parties following the principles of democracy. The exceptional laws issued in Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc., will be followed by similar laws in other important capitalist states. It is hoped to break the increasing resistance of the working masses lor a long time to come by placing the communist movement, or rather its organizations, completely outside the law. The experiences undergone by the Italian proletariat, and the latest events in Czecho-Slovakia, in German-Austria, Germany, and the Balkan states, will play a leading part in the discussions of the Enlarged Executive.The Ruhr action, the workers’ and peasants’ government the proletarian united front, trade unions tactics, national problems, the question of agitation among small farmers – all these important questions are to be thoroughly considered. The delegates of the various sections of the C.I. will return to their countries thoroughly informed on the political events of the most important states, enlightened concerning the experiences gained in the latest great political and economic struggles in almost all capitalist states, and acquainted – thanks to the detailed discussions – with every line of tactics required for the immediate future; they will thus be enabled to continue their work with even greater success than before. Top of the pageLast updated on 14 October 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Neurath Alois NeurathThe Labor MovementThe Offensive of the Czech Exploiters(28 March 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 24, 28 March 1922, pp. 182–183.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2019). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.After the defeat of the miners, the other employer groups are not permitting the favorable occasion to slip by, and are also beginning to attack. The exploiters of the glass industry have made the beginning. For several weeks the employers and the glass workers have been at loggerheads. In the glass industry, “home work ” is still very extensive and the exploitation of the wage earners is therefore greater than in any other branch of industry A few weeks ago the workers asked for a small increase in wages. As a result of the “glorious” conclusion of the miners’ strike, the employers answered with an announcement that they intended to decrease wages to the extent of 20, 30 and more per cent. The trade-union leaders and the Social Democratic papers announced a relentless struggle against the employers m regard to the reduction of wages, We draw attention to the fact that the trade-union bureaucracy had the opportunity of convincing themselves during the last struggle that the capitalists are not frightened by talk, and that the exploiters ignored all the recommendations of the government. The workers – not alone those organized as Communists – know very well (and the trade-union bureaucracy also know it), that in no serious affair has the government been able to restrain the capitalists. The government dances as the employers whistle, and the capitalists know how to whistle.The representatives of the workers demand the intervention of the government. For tactical reasons nothing can be said against this. No harm is done if this simple and valuable truth is continually demonstrated anew to all of the workers that the government not only does not [do] anything that is against the interests of the capitalists, but that when a serious occasion arrives it is to be found with all of the powers at the disposal of the state on the side of the exploiters. Till recently the employers have for tactical reasons played the game and permitted the mediation of the government.In the struggle between the employers and the workers in the glass industry the capitalists are not acting as wisely as their colleagues, the mine-owners. They feel their strength and evidently expect that there is a big difference between the words of the trade-union leaders and their actions. The Ministry for Social Welfare invited the representatives of the workers and the employers to a mutual conference on Wednesday, March 8th. The capitalists declared that they have no use for any mediation, that they do not need any discussions and demanded that before a conference take place the workers accept the demands of the employers. The conference, however, took place and a representative of the employers also took part who added to the forwardness of the employers his own contempt and declared that he had merely come to enjoy himself personally. This “lack of manners\" was even too much for the representative of the Ministry. The latter could not permit it to be so openly revealed that the employers are sure of the support of the government. Therefore the representative of the Ministry tried to call the representative of the employers to order. Hereupon the man rose and contemptuously left the conference.Thus the employers intend not only to reject the demands of the workers (this the employers no longer mention), but to cut wages considerably. The trade-union bureaucracy still has time to act in order to prevent the employers from treating the workers as entirely helpless slaves. But so much is certain, that the capitalists must be made to feel that the representatives of the workers are not only going to take up the struggle, but are also going to carry it through together with the aid of the workers of outer industrial groups. Even if a comparatively small group of worker is concerned, its defeat can only be prevented if all the labor parties and above all the representatives of the Trade-Union Federation convoke a general conference to discuss the measures that will have to be taken by larger sections of the proletariat than are now involved in the struggle. It remains to be seen whether the trade-union leaders are able to draw the correct consequences from the recent struggle of the miners. Top of the pageLast updated on 2 September 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Neurath Alois NeurathReport of the Balkan, Swiss and Austrian CommissionsThe Enlarged Executive: Eleventh Day of Session(23 June 1923)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 52, 23 July 1923, pp. 547–548. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2022). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.June 23, 1923Neurath presented a report of the Balkan, Swiss and Austrian Commissions.He proposed that the settlement of the Balkan Question, particularly as regards Jugoslavia, should be handed over to the Presidium. The resolutions on the Swiss Question were adopted unanimously by the Commission. The Austrian Commission, also, came to differences in principle between the two fractions, the majority and the minority. The Commission adopted a decision to the effect that the Executive of the Austrian Communist Party should be obliged to invite representatives of the minority to all Party work, including political work. We expect that the Austrian Party Executive will carry out this decision loyally. The Austrian Party is not so strong as to permit itself the luxury of excluding a section from collaboration in political work. We hope that on this basis the differences of a personal nature that still remain will be completely liquidated.The Resolutions on the Swiss and Austrian Questions were adopted unanimously.*Swiss QuestionPropagandist ActivityThe Swiss Communist Party has a relatively small membership, for it numbers from 4,500 to 4,800 paid-up members, as against 30,000 members of the Social-democratic Party. Moreover, taking into consideration that the Swiss Trade Unions have an approximate membership of a quarter of a million workers, it is no exaggeration to say that the numerical strength of the Party is not in proportion to the strength of the Labor movement as a whole, which naturally includes the trade unions, it appears that the Swiss Party Executive was concerned about the maintenance of a so-called “Pure Communist Party”. In this connection we draw their attention to the following: the Russian Communist Party, which has been victorious in the social revolution and which now possesses the means of Power in the Russian State, is the target for the world reaction as a whole. It finds itself in the position of a defensive army in a beleaguered fortress. This Party must be careful to restrict its ranks to proven Communists. Those sections of the Communist International which have yet to organise and to wage the fight against the governing classes of their respective countries, who have yet to gain the sympathies of the large (passes of the population, if not a direct majority, cannot afford the luxury of creating a so-called “Pure Party”, which should embrace only an infinitesimal minority of the class conscious proletariat. The Swiss Party has to develop an intense campaign for membership, so as to gain many new members. The Communist Party must seek not only immediate influence over the masses of the workers, but also indirect influence over the greatest possible portion of the working class, if it wants to fulfill its revolutionary tasks. The Party’s EnterprisesWe repeat once again that the Swiss Party Executive is not only entitled, but it is also its duty to see to it that all the enterprises of the Party should be under the control of the Executive. The Party Executive is responsible to the Party and to the Communist International not only for its general policies, but also for all the economic and other matters appertaining to the Party. This responsibility can be borne by the Party provided it has also the right of decisive influence, i.e. control, over all the enterprises of the Party.The Enlarged Executive of the Communist International confirms the decisions of the Presidium of the 15th March, 1923, with regard to the tactical methods within the Swiss Communist Party. The Enlarged Executive refers once again to the important questions which already occupied the attention of the Presidium. On the Trade Union QuestionOnly in as much as the Party takes care of the so-called everyday cares of the working class, in as much as it endeavours to influence the conduct of Trade Union struggles, to that extent the Party will be able to gain the increasing confidence of the organised workers of the Trade Unions. Our representatives in the Trade Union Movement must be guided in their activities by the Fourth World Congress of the Communist International, and above all by those of the R.I.LU. Congress. The activity of our comrades in the Trade Unions must be deliberately supported and promoted by the Party Press. Hence it follows the Party Press must give its most thorough attention to the problems of the economic struggle of the proletariatThe thesis advocated by the Trade Union leaders, Wys and Kopp, to the effect that the Party should give the least possible attention to Trade Union organization matters, is certainly absolutely wrong. It is true the direct influencing of the Trade Union movement by the Communist Party should not be emphasised at all times and at every opportunity. The main thing is that the Communist Party, or its representatives, should be actually in a position to influence the trade Union struggles in the spirit of the decisions of our World Congresses, and to compel the present nominal leaders of the trade unions, to act in the interest of the large masses of the working class, and thus to put the trade unions at the service of the class struggle.*Austrian Question"
}
|
{
"content": "The following are the main characteristics of the present situation in Austria: a) the complete dependence of Austria upon the Entente, whose representative is the unrestricted lord of the country; b) the extreme reactionary policy of Seipel, winch is directed exclusively against the Austrian working class; c) the strength of Fascism, the organizations of which are already making the first attempts to smash the Workers’ organizations and to crush the workers in blood; d) the strengthening of the monarchist organizations which hope foi the restoration; e) an extremely acute economic situation, rise in the cost of living, tremendous unemployment; f) the situation of the working class becoming steadily more acute, owing to the attempts of the capitalists to reduce the wages of the workers which are already far behind the increased cost of living, and to the growth of unemployment and the worsening of the conditions of labour.Owing to the above economic and political reasons, the class war in Austria is becoming more critical and armed collisions have already occurred.The Austrian Social-Democratic Party, which was once the strong-hold of the former 2½ International, is pursuing its policy of betraying the interests of the Austrian working class, of impotence in face of the capitalist offensive, and of supporting the bourgeoisie. The working class masses, and even certain Social-Democratic organizations, are becoming steadily disillusioned by this policy and are setting themselves in opposition to the leaders, as tn the case of certain strikes which were initiated in spite of the decision of the central organs of the Social-Democratic Party, and of other actions undertaken by the working class.These circumstances should induce the Austrian Communist Party to pursue its political policy with especial energy and perspicuity and to devote its attention to attracting working masses into the struggle against the capitalist offensive and against Fascism and also to the slogans connected with the following important tasks of the Party: Workers’ and Peasants’ GovernmentIt is the duty of the Austrian Communist Party as of every other Section of the Communist International, to conduct a clear propaganda in the sense ol the decisions of the Fourth World Congress and of the Enlarged Executive with regard to a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. The fight against the Seipel Government or against a coalition government with the Social-Democrats cannot be conducted successfully, nor taken up seriously by the revolutionary workers of Austria, if the Austrian Communist Party is not in a position to bring forward a definite aim for the struggle. A Workers’ and Peasants’ Government 16 consequently not merely a propaganda slogan, but a slogan of action. The agitation of the Austrian Communist Party, as far as concerns a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, will be without effect and will remain incomprehensible to the broad masses, if the Party does not succeed in creating a practical, i.e. organisational and agitational, close contact with the agricultural population. It is in this very sense that the Austrian Communist Party has not proved itself equal to its task. Electoral PolicyThe Austrian Communist Party must participate independently in the elections. It can adopt a common electoral platform only with the opposition trade union bloc In its electoral program the Party must make clear its communist point of view. The Austrian Party must conduct the election campaign mainly on the questions of the fight against Fascism, the Christian-Socialist Government, against the Coalition Government, and for a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. If the Party conducts its work well on this basis, if it fulfils its duties in the sphere of trade union activity and in agitation and propaganda, not only among the proletarian sections of the people, but also among the petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarian masses, and above all among the agricultural proletariat, it will be in a position to obtain the votes not only of the conscious revolutionary class fighters, but also a part of the votes of the honest opponents of capitalism. It goes without saying that the Communist Party of Austria must expose the treacherous attitude towards the workers on the part of the Social-Democratic Party. The Trade Union QuestionThe Trade Union tactics of the Communist Party of Austria, in the main express the decisions of the Fourth Congress of the Profintern. In this sphere of its tactics the Communist Party of Austria has already certain successes to record. Recently, however, the responsible bodies of the Party have permitted certain serious errors to be committed in the sphere of trade unionism. It appears from the reports submitted by Comrades Koritschoner and Frey that responsible trade union officials of the Communist Party of Austria, during negotiations over wages, are not always acted according to the principles formulated by the Red International of Labor Unions. In every wages campaign, the attitude of our officials must be well considered, well prepared, and above all, unitedly and compactly represented. The Party must combat the reformists, not only by its criticism but also by positive proposals. At every meeting of wages committees, factory councils conferences, etc., the representatives of the revolutionary bloc must always represent the principles of the Red International of Labor Unions. This must be done even at the risk of our comrades being expelled front these bodies by the reformists. Under no circumstances should communist officials strive to secure the right to participate in any campaign for wages negotiations at the price of sacrificing our principles.At the conclusions of wages movements, which have ended unsuccessfully as a consequence of the tactics of the reformists, a thorough estimation of the movement must be made in the press and particularly in the factories giving a definite outline of our position. The Youth Organisation"
}
|
{
"content": "Without going into the details of the differences between the Communist Party of Austria and the Young Communist League of Austria, it must be generally stated here that the Party must bring about good relations with the Youth Organisation. The Party must strive always to maintain good relations with the Youth Organisation. On the basis of the decisions laid down by the CI (YCI), politically and tactically the Youth Organisation is subordinate to the Party. Nevertheless, in accordance with international decisions, the organisational independence of the Youth’s Organisation is not hereby limited. In the Youth’s Organisation, as well as in the Party, all factionalism must cease. The Party NewspaperIt has been established that the editorial staff of the Rote Fahne has not always understood how to be politically realistic. We refer here to the assassination of Comrade Vorovsky, to the Unity Congress of the Second and 2½ International, and last but not least to the propaganda for the Labor Government. The editorial staff of Rote Fahne has given but little attention to these questions in every respect. The Party press must, more than hitherto, give prominence to news and facts and deal with the events of the day in their social connection and at the same time advocate the slogans of the Comintern. PersonalThe representatives of both factions undertake to put an end to all personal and factional conflicts and ruthlessly oppose any attempt to renew them. Top of the pageLast updated on 3 September 2022"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Neurath NeurathSpeech at Session of Enlarged Executive of C.I.Fifth Day of SessionMorning(28 June 1923)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 46, 28 June 1923, pp. 450–451.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.The Ruhr action is a question of more than local importance. It cannot be a matter of indifference for the Enlarged Executive what attitude the leading papers or the leaders of the German Communist Party take up towards it. The most important task was either to win over or neutralise the best part of the petty-bourgeois and proletarian sections of the population, and to carry on a policy which would enable the French proletariat to conduct a vigorous struggle against French imperialism.What efforts were made to solve this task? The question was: should one deal with the situation by making use of nationalist prejudices, or by combating them ruthlessly?The International, the theoretical organ of the Communist Party of Germany, published an article entitled Some Tactical Questions of the Ruhr War. This article contained the following paragraph.“Although the German bourgeoisie is in its inmost heart counter-revolutionary, it has been given the opportunity to appear outwardly as an objectively revolutionary factor, owing to the cowardice of the petty-bourgeois democracy (principally the social-democracy). It is outwardly (at least for the time being) revolutionary in spite of itself (as Bismarck was from 1864 to 1871). and for analagous historic reasons.”As a matter of fact, in this struggle, the German bourgeoisie has not played anywhere an objectively revolutionary role. Its role has been counter-revolutionary.The German Party has taken the right view of the situation. In its political resolution, the German Party Conference made, among other things, the following statement:“The only way out of the terrible situation (which grows daily worse) in which the German working and middle classes find themselves at present, and the only way to avoid the dangers which are threatening the very existence of Germany, is the establishment of a militant united front of the working class against its own bourgeoisie. and working class leadership of the nation.”This means that French imperialism can only be defeated by the German proletariat. If the latter will, in the first instance, carry on a relentless struggle against its own bourgeoisie. It Is only thus that the Party helps the French proletariat to defeat the French bourgeoisie. Comrade Thalheimer referred to Marx’ and Engels’ attitude to the Franco-German war. If a parallel is to be drawn at all, it must be this: just as Thiers arrived at an understanding with Bismarck concerning the slaughter of the revolutionary French proletariat, so has Lutterbeck (on behalf of the German bourgeoisie) arrived at an understanding with the French general concerning the slaughter of the German revolutionary proletariat.In his reply, Thalheimer wrote, among other things, as follows:“It must he one of two things: either the German working class must look upon its present defensive struggle against French Imperialism as a revolutionary aim, or, if it does not do that, then in the latter case this struggle should not be carried on at all. I am of the opinion that the struggle of the proletariat against Imperialism in general cannot but be a revolutionary aim. But the question is: what is the best way for the German working class to conduct this struggle. I reiterate, the best way for the German working class to conduct the struggle against French imperialism is to realise that it must first of all overthrow the German bourgeoisie or carry on a relentless struggle against it, in order to establish a united fighting front with the French proletariat.”Previous to that. In Nr. 5 of the International, Thalheimer said: “The defeat of French imperialism in the world war was not a Communist aim, but its defeat in the Ruhr is a Communist aim.”I confess that I do not understand this theoretical principle. I put the question: was the struggle against French Imperialism in 1914–18 a Communist, and thus, a revolutionary socialist aim or not? If in 1914 the struggle against French imperialism was not a communist aim, the Entente social patriots were perhaps right in their assertion that the struggle against the Hohenzollern dynasty was revolutionary.From the beginning of the war, the struggle against French Imperialism, and every kind of Imperialism, was naturally a Communist and a revolutionary aim. The proletariat of every State is under the obligation to fight against its own bourgeoisie, thus creating the prerequisite for the overthrow of international reaction.Such, then, was the situation between 1914 and 1918. and such it is today. Comrade Thalheimer pointed out that great changes have taken place since 1914. But what are these changes? Thalheimer wanted to know what German imperialism was, and where was its strength. But in his criticism he overlooked a small matter, viz. that during and towards the end of the war the forces of the German bourgeoisie were shattered, that its militarism is practically non-existent. and can therefore not be considered as a force, as was the case in 1914 and later. The German bourgeoisie being today the weakest, it is occupying at present the weakest position In the world’s structure of capitalism. Overthrow of the German bourgeoisie, establishment of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, alliance with the Soviet Government and after the victory of the working class – if it cannot be avoided – a repetition of Brest-Litovsk, some compromise with French imperialism, such is the way not only to carry on a successful struggle, but. by such direct methods, to bring large masses of petty-bourgeois proletarian sections of society over to Communism. This will not happen, if we attempt to compete with the German nationalists, but only If we maintain in this critical situation the strictest internationalism. Top of the pageLast updated on 3 September 2022"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Neurath Alois NeurathIn the InternationalThe United Front and the Communist Party of Czecho-Slovakia(17 March 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 21, 17 March 1922, pp. 157–158.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2019). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.In 1920 the Czech class-conscious workers parted from their social patriotic leaders, in March 1921 the German proletarians followed, and during the end of November of the same year the German and Czech class-conscious proletarians united into the Communist Party of Czecho-Slovakia. The C.P.C. is now able to organize the revolutionary struggle of the working class without being exposed to the sabotage of the opportunists and social patriotic leaders. Every worker who is only superficially acquainted with the political struggle of the last six years understands very well that the split of the old social-imperialistic political parties forms the most primitive prerequisite for the revolutionary class struggle.When we issued the slogan of the proletarian united front the trade-union and socialist papers represented the situation as if the Communists were merely interested in forming new watchwords, in order by this method to win the proletariat for its political actions. But our delegates not let an occasion slip by without showing the workers that all of their so-called social and political gains are in danger, that the capitalists are attacking the eight-hour day, and that they are preparing a general cut in wages. Last year at the time that the conflict in the metal industry began, we told the workers that the capitalists would not yield if they saw that they only had to do with the metal workers. If it were not possible to get several other large trade-unions to show solidarity in practice, then the arrogance of not only the capitalists in the metal industry, but of all the rest of the exploiters could not be kept in bounds. The Right Socialist trade-union leaders and the Social Democrats made fun of our slogans; but at the end of the struggle the workers were forced to understand that we had been right. Then came the struggle of the financial magnates against the bank employees. The Communists told the proletariat that without doubt the bank employees would also be defeated if larger groups of manual workers did not come to their aid. Again the trade-union leaders tried to discredit our attitude. The workers, however, saw two things: first, that their trade-union leaders and their Right Socialist parliamentarians carried on negotiations with the government and formulated a few phrases about solidarity with the struggling bank employees, and second, that the struggle, however, ended just as the Communists had predicted. Before Christmas 1921, the decisive group of capitalists, the mine barons, began the attack. The Communists said: “This struggle is decisive. If the mine owners win, then the advance of the entire bourgeoisie of Czecho-Slovakia cannot be stopped, and your defeat is inevitable.” The slander of the Right Socialists was in vain. In large meetings the workers expressed their attitude, demanded the extension of the struggle and for the present the general strike of the miners. The capitalists hesitated They postponed the struggle. In the meantimes war was declared against the state employees and they were defeated. They, too, had been left without any support.And now began (the beginning of February) the great struggle in the mining industry. The problem was now to show in what way the extension of the struggle and the defensive front could be prepared and achieved in practice. As soon as the united front is mentioned, the Socialists of the Right try to shift the basis of discussion. They do not speak of the struggle and its organization but of the bureaucratic prerequisites for a proletarian united front and of the preparation and organization of a “proletarian congress” and the like. The mistrust of the workers (and in this case not alone of the Communist workers) is immediately aroused when they hear of new bureaucratic institutions, the workers ask: “The capitalists want to diminish our income, that is, lower our standard of living, increase our misery. What can we do against them?” The demand for a proletarian congress is rejected. Our party and our delegates pointed to the last struggles and said to the miners:“The entire bourgeoisie and the government with all the powers of the state are standing behind the mine owners. If you are defeated, then a decrease in wages will follow in all the other branches. You will be defeated, if you, as miners, are forced to remain alone in the struggle. You can only repulse the attack of the capitalists if your front is broadened to include the workers of other vital trades and industries, especially the workers of the transit and transport industries. It is therefore your business to force your leaders to prepare the struggle and so prevent a definite defeat.”We went to the Right Socialist trade-union organizations and all the Socialist parties and told them essentially what we had explained to the workers. In order to deprive the demagogues of the Right beforehand of all excuses we declared from the beginning that we did not put up a single political demand. We do not speak of the struggle for political power, nor of the Third International, we merely are speaking of those things that are for the proletariat at present the most decisive, namely, of the aim of the bourgeoisie to restore the productive apparatus of the capitalist economic system at the cost of the workers and of how we can prevent this aim. The Social Democrats in the Trade Union Executive and the Socialist parties became extremely embarrassed. The Czech trade-union leaders and the Right Socialists, by far smarter and sharper than the German separatists, answered our letters after the struggle was nearing its end or ended. The German separatists did not give any at all, all the more did they rage in their political newspapers and their trade-union journals."
}
|
{
"content": "The workers understood us?Completely. They above all understood – and that was the most important – that we are really serious, that we really want to build up a united front. They seen and they will feel it still more clearly now, that everything that we said about the struggle, about its course, about its end, is entirely correct and above all they recognize very dearly that this shameful end could been prevented, if the trade-union leaders had respected our proposals.A conference of the secretaries and delegates of the miners, which took place in Prague, accepted the agreement which had been made by the coal barons and the trade-union leaders. We already reported here about this agreement, and shown how cleverly the defeat had been covered up. However, when the delegates came home, they were received with great indignation, especially in Mährisch-Ostrau, the most important coal district of Czecho-Slovakia. In a vote taken at the pits, 90% of the workers voted against the agreement. Only gradually as the results of the agreement begin to make themselves shown, as for instance, is the case in the Falkenau district, do the workers recognize the extent of the defeat.During the last months the wage earners without regard to their political affiliations seen that the C.P. has honestly tried to bring about all the necessary prerequisites for the trade-union leaders and the Right Socialists to prevent our endeavors. Before the outbreak of the next struggle the workers will want to decide in time if and how the front of the wage earners shall be extended. Whether or not it will suit the trade-union leaders, they will to, willingly or unwillingly, sit down together with us and seriously talk about the organization of the struggle. The workers will also see to it that such only trade-union leaders will be sent to the conferences as they can trust, in this way, that united proletarian front will gradually develop which will not alone be able to repulse the attack of the capitalists but itself begin an attack. A few dozen or a few hundred bureaucrats cannot build up a united front at proletarian conferences and congresses; this united front will not be able to be anything else than the fruit of long drawn-out struggles and bitter experiences. Top of the pageLast updated on 2 September 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "Main NI Index | Main Newspaper IndexEncyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet ArchiveNew International, January–February 1953 Alois NeurathAn Open Letter to ZapotockyFrom a Founder of the Communist Movement(January 1953) From New International, Vol. XIII No. 1, January–February 1953, pp. 52–55.Marked up up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL. The author is highly qualified from every standpoint to address this open letter to the Czech Stalinist leader, Zapotocky. Alois Neurath is one of the most prominent of the founders and builders of the international communist movement in the days when it was a communist movement. In 1921, after the founding of the Communist Party of the Czechoslovakian Republic (in the German-speaking sector), Comrade Neurath became its General Secretary. After the union of the Communist Party of the German section and the party of the Czechoslovakian section, Neurath became director, together with Dr. Hauser, of the Central Secretariat of the united organization. In the subsequent internal party conflicts, they were replaced by Jilek, first, and then by Zapotocky, as General Secretary. From 1922 to 1926, Neurath was a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International; from November 1922 to June 1923, he was a member of the Moscow Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, along with the Bulgarian Kolarov, the Finn Kuusinen and the Russian Pyatnitsky. In 1926, Neurath came out in opposition to the policy of the Comintern and Czech party leadership and after a protracted struggle, left the party in 1929. He became a supporter of the Trotskyist movement, without, actually joining the international organization, although he was in constant touch with Leon Trotsky by mail. He succeeded in escaping the Hitlerite terror and has been residing for years in Sweden. – Ed.*Mr. Antonin ZapotockyMinister-PresidentPrague, CZROnly a few days ago I received the issues of Rude Pravo containing all the materials relating to the trial as well as the testimony and “confessions” of the accused. The materials, especially the “confessions” of the accused, show that it was not so much Slansky but Frejka (Freund) and Geminder who were guilty of the economic bankruptcy of Czechoslovakia. Geminder as well as Frejka confessed that they had been seduced by me, the “Trotskyite” thirty years ago, having been put on the wrong track, so to speak, that far back. In this respect Geminder had even more to say, namely, that Slansky had confided to him that he (Slansky) was in agreement with his political opinions. And Frejka provoked reproaches from the prosecution because of the tremendous losses his economic measures had caused the state; “confessed” that it was I who had given him such a responsible position in the party apparatus. This part of the “confessions” of both accused corresponds to the truth as much as everything else to which the victims of the trials have “confessed.” I had practically nothing to do with Geminder and I helped Frejka in 1923 or ’24 to get a job as city editor with the Reichenberger Vorwaerts.The fact that your former colleagues and friends have been compelled to mention my name in the course of the trial a few times would not be a reason to address this open letter to you. For Frejka and Geminder testified only to that to which they had been forced to testify. It cannot be a question of polemizing against the testimony of the trial victims, but to expose your responsibility for this shameful trial.Though neither Slansky, Geminder nor Frejka are my concern, nevertheless it is you, though you are not alone, who is responsible for the arrest, conviction and execution of a number of the “Karliner gang.” It was the party leadership which together with the functionaries of the NKVD drew up the list of those party functionaries who were to stand before the Peoples’ Court as “saboteurs,” “spies,” “murderers” and above all as “Zionists.”In this connection, therefore, it is in order to illuminate your political past and your specific political acts. It was not so much Slansky, Frejka and Geminder, but Gottwald and a few others of the above group which you denounced at the time as the “Karliner gang” whom I sought to influence during the years 1923–25. One of the important tasks of this “Karliner gang” consisted among other things in trying to forestall those excesses which you, together with Nosek, Smeral, and others organized. (Attacks on the editorial offices of Rude Pravo and individual members of the Central Committee, who did not belong to your group.) Stalin himself at the time termed these excesses “banditry,” and he called you, who had been responsible for them, “bandits.” It is far from certain that Stalin has revised his opinion of you even today.In 1925, the “troika” (Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin) decided on a thorough cleaning out of the Central Committee of the Czech Communist Party. The “troika” categorically demanded not only Smeral’s, Nosek’s and your removal from the CC, but your exclusion from the party altogether. The majority of the CC did not abide by this demand of the “troika.” Some of those belonging to the “Karliner gang” group, whom you have sent to the gallows, at that time opposed the decision of the “troika.” You have them to thank for the fact that you were not thrown out of the party as a “counter-revolutionary” or “bourgeois agent.” (At that time the Central Committees of the Communist Parties were not yet full of “spies,” “murderers,” “police agents,” and “Zionists.” That became the fashion only after Stalin had attained power.)It would be pointless to enumerate all your political mistakes or those of other Stalinists, since Stalin determines the “general line” not only of the Soviet union, but of the Comintern as well; and therefore, it is the Kremlin that decides in the first instance who is a “spy” or “Zionist,” and who shall be hanged. Furthermore, it is the Kremlin that supplies the background of the various witchcraft trials. Moscow has now decided to begin an international anti-Semitic campaign. Were this not so, it would not be Slansky, Frejka, Geminder, etc., who would be facing the Peoples Court but possibly Gottwald, Zapotocky and Co."
}
|
{
"content": "One of the accused admitted, among other things, that he had been sympathetic to the Marshall Plan. What comedy! It was, after all, your “friend” and only opponent in the Central Committee, Gottwald, who was ready to welcome the Marshall Plan in the name of the Prague regime. Not Slansky, but Gottwald, as is well-known, was ordered to come to Moscow to receive a dressing-down because of his attitude on the Marshall Plan.Today the only task of the Central Committee of the CPC consists of facilitating the activities of the NKVD insofar as the matter concerns dooming this or that group of party functionaries to the gallows. The fact that this time Moscow has initiated an anti-Semitic action has given you the opportunity of getting rid of some of your antagonists for ever, since among them were a few Jews. The question was not one of who might be a “spy” but one of who was a Jew among the leading cadres of the party. And then the “chosen ones” were compelled to confess that they not only had acted as “spies” but in the first place as “Zionists.”What shame! No party, no human being, and above all no person actively engaged in politics can sink to a lower level than anti-Semitism!No one knows better than you that none of those convicted in the Prague Witchcraft Trial were spies, that none of them committed the crimes to which they “confessed.” All the accused are victims of a bestial judicial murder. You know, of course, that the Prague Trials were in no way intended to influence public opinion in the CSR favorably. Only a very small part of the Czech population takes the materials of the trial seriously or believes in the “confessions” of the accused. If the trial in Czechoslovakia has any favorable result, it consists in strengthening “Titoism.” But it was not after all the purpose of the trial to create a friendly attitude on the part of the population, the trial represented the beginning of the international anti- Semitic campaign that meets the momentary needs of the Kremlin.I repeat here the dialogue between the prosecutor and Geminder as it was published in Rude Pravo:Geminder: I attended German schools in Ostrau. In 1910 I left the country and finished my high school studies in Berlin. After finishing these studies, I began to run around with provincial, petty-bourgeois cosmopolitan and Zionist circles where only German was spoken. That is the reason I don’t talk good Czechoslovakian.Prosecutor: What language do you speak well?Geminder: German.Prosecutor: Do you really speak a good German?Geminder: It’s been a long time since I spoke German, but I know it.Prosecutor: Do you know German about as well as you know Czech.Geminder: Yes.Prosecutor: Then you really can’t speak any language decently. A typical cosmopolitan.All the trial proceedings are conducted on this low level. And the level on which the whole trial occurs corresponds completely to the purpose of the trial itself: propaganda for anti-Semitism.It is not so long ago that Slansky forced you to engage in “self-criticism.” You publicly confessed in 1945 that you were the author of the slanderous name “the Karliner gang,” and that it has turned out that they (in the first place Slansky) had always been right and you wrong.Moscow’s international general anti- Semitic offensive has completely changed the situation inside the Central Committee of the CPC. Moscow demands Jews as scapegoats. And you have taken advantage of this favorable opportunity to denounce not only Frejka, Geminder and others, but above all Slansky, as “Zionists.”Apart from the pleasure you derived from handing your strongest opponent over to the NKVD, you really had no other choice. Nor is there any way out’ You cannot escape your own fate. After Zinoviev, Kamenev and the others, those became the victims who had borne witness against them: Bukharin, Radek, etc. And after that came the turn of those who had testified against Bukharin, Radek, etc. Yesterday it was Slansky and company. Tomorrow it will be Gottwald, Zapotocky and company. Such things have their own logic. Stockholm, January 1953Alois Neurath Top of pageMain NI Index | Main Newspaper IndexEncyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet ArchiveLast updated on 21 February 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Neurath Alois NeurathThe Labor MovementThe National Trade Union Congress of Czecho-Slovakia(10 February 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. II No. 11, 10 February 1922, p. 78.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2019). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.The National Trade Union Congress of Czecho-Slovakia met in Prague from Sunday, January 22nd, to Thursday, January 26th 1922. Before its opening, articles on the significance of this Congress had been published by the Communist press both at home and abroad expressing the hope that the majority of the trade-union representatives would vote in favor of the Red Trade Union International. The prospects were very favourable indeed. Several unions had some time ago elected Communist leaders. The following unions were already permeated with Communist spirit before the Congress: rural and forest workers, chemical workers, workers of the building trade and lumbermen These organisations comprise 344,000 members.According to the figures of the Prague Trade Union Commission 832,000 workers are organised in Czech unions. The Moravian Trade Union Conference took place at Brunn, September 28th, the overwhelming majority of which voted in favor of the Red Trade Union International. At this conference 207,000 workers were represented. In October a Trade Union Conference at Bosenberg, representing 143.000 organised workers, demanded secession from the Amsterdam International. It was the task of the Communist Party, i.e., the National Communist Trade Union Committee, to do their best in enlightening the workers and influencing the election of the delegates to the National Trade Union Congress. Have these bodies thoroughly fulfilled their task? This question must be answered in the negative. It is true that our Party was unable to begin preparations in time as it was only founded on October 31st, 1921. After its formation, however, the Communist Party could have done more than has been done in making the organized proletariat of all unions recognise the immense importance of the National Trade Union Congress. Only some days before the beginning of the Congress the Party Executive examined the preparations of the Communist Trade Union Committee. For a considerable time the Agricultural Workers’ Union had paid no dues to the National Trade Union Commission. The Party Executive and the Communist Trade Union Committee side with the view of the Red Trade Union International that unity of the trade union movement must be kept intact. They reject the opinion that unions with a Communist majority should leave the National Trade Union Fereration. For this very reason the Communist Trade Union Committee advised the Agricultural Workers’ Union to pay their dues to the National Trade Union Commission, thus preserving their right of representation at the National Congress. The same advice was given by the Executive of the Communist Party. The Congress being over now, it is not only our right but our duty to say that the Agricultural Workers’ Union has not considered this advice. They did not pay their dues and thus lost their right of sending a delegation to the National Congress. This was a fundamental problem. The decision of the Red Trade Union International to do everything possible to maintain the unity of the trade-union movement must be followed by Communist trade-union representatives. This principle has been violated by the leaders of the Agricultural Workers’ Union, who in spite of all decisions did not pay their dues, thus placing themselves outside the National Trade Union Congress, and considerably weakening the Communist representation in this Congress.According to the report of the Credentials Committee the following 602 delegates attended the Congress: 37 editors of trade organs, 126 delegates of Divisional and Local Trade Union Councils and 439 delegates of union branches. Before the Congress the Social Democrats who control the entire union apparatus spoke and wrote very little but worked all the more actively. With all the tricks of experienced politicians the Amsterdam trade-union bureaucrats were “preparing” the elections. The conferences in Moravia, Silesia, Slovakia and the unions which already before the Congress were under Communist leadership are ample proof of the fact that the majority of the workers in Czecho-Slovakia supported the campaign against the Amsterdam International. In the first session of the Congress the strength of both fractions was tested in a trial vote. The motion being of small importance, however, the result was not quite clear 316 delegates voted in favour of Tayerle, secretary of the Trade Union Commission, and 270 against him. Two days later however, when the new rules of the Trade Union Federation were decided upon, Tayerle received 343 votes, while 226 delegates voted against him. The day before the Congress was closed the following proposal of the building trades workers was voted upon by soll-call:“Dealing with the problem of international affiliation the Seventh National Trade Union Congress approves of the withdrawal of the Czecho-Slovakian Trade Union Federation from the Amsterdam Trade Union International and its affiliation to the Moscow Trade Union International.”Representatives of 222,027 workers voted in favor of this proposal and of 338,477 against it, i.e., the Congress decided with a majority of 116,405 to remain affiliated to the Amsterdam International.From their point of view the Amsterdam trade-union officials excellently prepared for the Congress. They succeeded in bringing their influence to bear upon the delegates of the Congress. Tayerle welcomed the guests, thereby casually mentioning that a representative of the Third International was present. Mertens, representative of the Amsterdam International and Jouhaux, delegate of the French Amsterdam Labor Federation were given the floor to greet the Congress. The representative of the Third International, however, was not allowed to speak. Yet the letter of Comrade Lozovsky to the Congress could not well be suppressed. As for the rest, the Amsterdam supporters in the Czecho-Slovakian Trade Union Federation are shrewd wirepullers. The talk very much about the unity of the movement and the neutrality of the trade unions. They say that so-called political differences should not be allowed to influence economic organisations of the workers."
}
|
{
"content": "It would be a great mistake, however, to consider the machinations and tactical tricks of the Amsterdam bureaucrats the only reason for the result of the Congress. The tricks of the Amsterdamers and the mistakes of the Communist Party and the Communist trade unions could influence the Congress but to a certain extent. What is more, we must not overlook or deny the fact that large numbers of workers who do not agree with the Amsterdam officials, are not yet sufficiently informed on the principles of the Red Trade Union International. With the support of the Communist Party the Communist Trade Union Committee must carry on more intensive agitation and propaganda activities among the organized workers than has been the case heretofore. We will have favorable opportunities for this work. If the Communist Trade Union Committee and the Communist trade-union representatives fulfil their duty in the large economic struggles, the Amsterdam bureaucrats will in spite of their intrigues be left hanging in the air. Top of the pageLast updated on 4 May 2019"
}
|
{
"content": " Lev VygotskyThe Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology: A Methodological InvestigationWritten: 1927;Source: The Collected Works of Vygotsky;Publisher: Plenum Press, 1987;Translated: translated Rene Van Der Veer;Transcribed: Andy Blunden;HTML Markup: Andy Blunden.Table of ContentsChapter 1 – The Nature of the CrisisChapter 2 – Our ApproachChapter 3– The Development of SciencesChapter 4 – Current Trends in PsychologyChapter 5 – From Generalisation to ExplanationChapter 6 – The Objective Tendencies in development of a ScienceChapter 7 – The Unconscious. The Fusing of disparate theoriesChapter 8 – The Biogenetic hypothesis. Borrowings from the natural sciencesChapter 9 – On Scientific LanguageChapter 10 – Interpretations of the Crisis in Psychology and its MeaningChapter 11 – Bankruptcy of the idea of creating an empirical psychologyChapter 12 – The Driving Forces of the CrisisChapter 13– Two PsychologiesChapter 14 – Conclusion“When one mixes up the epistemological problem with the ontological one by introducing into psychology not the whole argumentation but its final results, this leads to the distortion of both. In Russia the subjective is identified with the mental and later it is proved that the mental cannot be objective. Epistemological consciousness as part of the antinomy “subject-object” is confused with empirical, psychological consciousness and then it is asserted that consciousness cannot be material, that to assume this would be Machism. And as a result one ends up with neoplatonism, in the sense of infallible essences for which being and phenomenon coincide. They flee from idealism only to plunge into it headlong.” Two PsychologiesGlossary References:Brentano |Wundt |Dilthey |Pavlov |Freud |Adler |Koffka |JungFurther reading:The Work of the Cerebral Hemispheres, Pavlov 1924The Origins of Cognitive Thought, B F Skinner 1989Genetic Epistemology, Jean Piaget 1968The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, 1962“History is a science about the past, reconstructed by its traces, and not a science about the traces of the past.” [Chapter 8]Vygotsky Internet Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Martin Heidegger (1927)The Basic Problems of PhenomenologyIntroductionSource: The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (1954) Published by Indiana University Press, 1975. Introduction, p 1 - 23 reproduced here.§ 1. Exposition and general division of the themeThis course sets for itself the task of posing the basic problemsof phenomenology, elaborating them, and proceeding to someextent toward their solution. Phenomenology must develop its conceptout of what it takes as its theme and how it investigates itsobject. Our considerations are aimed at the inherent contentand inner systematic relationships of the basic problems.The goal is to achieve a fundamental illumination of these problems.In negative terms this means that our purpose is not to acquirehistorical knowledge about the circumstances of the modern movementin philosophy called phenomenology. We shall be dealing not withphenomenology but with what phenomenology itself deals with. And,again, we do not wish merely to take note of it so as to be ableto report then that phenomenology deals with this or that subject;instead, the course deals with the subject itself, and you yourselfare supposed to deal with it, or learn how to do so, as the courseproceeds. The point is not to gain some knowledge about philosophybut to be able to philosophise. An introduction to the basic problemscould lead to that end.And these basic problems themselves? Are we to take it on trustthat the ones we discuss do in fact constitute the inventory ofthe basic problems? How shall we arrive at these basic problems?Not directly but by the roundabout way of a discussion of certainindividual problems. From these we shall sift out the basicproblems and determine their systematic interconnection. Suchan understanding of the basic problems should yield insight intothe degree to which philosophy as a science is necessarily demandedby them.The course accordingly divides into three parts. At theoutset we may outline them roughly as follows:Concrete phenomenological inquiry leading to the basic problemsThe basic problems of phenomenology in their systematic orderand foundationThe scientific way of treating these problems and the ideaof phenomenologyThe path of our reflections will take us from certain individualproblems to the basic problems. The question therefore arises,How are we to gain the starting point of our considerations? Howshall we select and circumscribe the individual problems? Is thisto be left to chance and arbitrary choice? In order to avoid theappearance that we have simply assembled a few problems at random,an introduction leading up to the individual problems is required.It might be thought that the simplest and surest way would beto derive the concrete individual phenomenological problems fromthe concept of phenomenology. Phenomenology is essentially suchand such; hence it encompasses such and such problems. But wehave first of all to arrive at the concept of phenomenology. Thisroute is accordingly closed to us. But to circumscribe the concreteproblems we do not ultimately need a clear-cut and fully validatedconcept of phenomenology. Instead it might be enough to have someacquaintance with what is nowadays familiarly known by the name\"phenomenology.\" Admittedly, within phenomenologicalinquiry there are again differing definitions of its nature andtasks. But, even if these differences in defining the nature ofphenomenology could be brought to a consensus, it would remaindoubtful whether the concept of phenomenology thus attained, asort of average concept, could direct us toward the concrete problemsto be chosen. For we should have to be certain beforehand thatphenomenological inquiry today has reached the center of philosophy'sproblems and has defined its own nature by way of their possibilities.As we shall see, however, this is not the case - and so littleis it the case that one of the main purposes of this course isto show that conceived in its basic tendency, phenomenologicalresearch can represent nothing less than the more explicit andmore radical understanding of the idea of a scientific philosophywhich philosophers from ancient times to Hegel sought to realizetime and again in a variety of internally coherent endeavours.Hitherto, phenomenology has been understood, even within thatdiscipline itself, as a science propaedeutic to philosophy, preparingthe ground for the proper philosophical disciplines of logic,ethics, aesthetics, and philosophy of religion. But in this definitionof phenomenology as a preparatory science the traditional stockof philosophical disciplines is taken over without asking whetherthat same stock is not called in question and eliminated preciselyby phenomenology itself. Does not phenomenology contain withinitself the possibility of reversing the alienation of philosophyinto these disciplines and of revitalising and reappropriatingin its basic tendencies the great tradition of philosophy withits essential answers? We shall maintain that phenomenology isnot just one philosophical science among others, nor is it thescience preparatory to the rest of them; rather, the expression\"phenomenology\" is the name for the method ofscientific philosophy in general.Clarification of the idea of phenomenology is equivalent to expositionof the concept of scientific philosophy. To be sure, this doesnot yet tell us what phenomenology means as far as its contentis concerned, and it tells us even less about how this methodis to be put into practice. But it does indicate how and why wemust avoid aligning ourselves with any contemporary tendency inphenomenology.We shall not deduce the concrete phenomenological problems fromsome dogmatically proposed concept of phenomenology; on the contrary,we shall allow ourselves to be led to them by a more general andpreparatory discussion of the concept of scientific philosophyin general. We shall conduct this discussion in tacit appositionto the basic tendencies of Western philosophy from antiquity toHegel.In the early period of ancient thought philosophia means the sameas science in general. Later, individual philosophies, that isto say, individual sciences - medicine, for instance, and mathematics- become detached from philosophy. The term philosophia then refersto a science which underlies and encompasses all the other particularsciences. Philosophy becomes science pure and simple. More andmore it takes itself to be the first and highest science or, asit was called during the period of German idealism, absolute science.If philosophy is absolute science, then the expression \"scientificphilosophy\" contains a pleonasm. It then means scientificabsolute science. It suffices simply to say \"philosophy.\"This already implies science pure and simple. Why then do we stilladd the adjective \"scientific\" to the expression \"philosophy\"?A science, not to speak of absolute science, is scientific bythe very meaning of the term. We speak of \"scientific philosophy\"principally because conceptions of philosophy prevail which not"
}
|
{
"content": "only imperil but even negate its character as science pure andsimple. These conceptions of philosophy are not just contemporarybut accompany the development of scientific philosophy throughoutthe time philosophy has existed as a science. On this view philosophyis supposed not only, and not in the first place, to be a theoreticalscience, but to give practical guidance to our view of thingsand their interconnection and our attitudes toward them, and toregulate and direct our interpretation of existence and its meaning.Philosophy is wisdom of the world and of life, or, to use an expressioncurrent nowadays, philosophy is supposed to provide a Weltanschauung,a world-view. Scientific philosophy can thus be set off againstphilosophy as world-view.We shall try to examine this distinction more critically and todecide whether it is valid or whether it has to be absorbed intoone of its members. In this way the concept of philosophy shouldbecome clear to us and put us in a position to justify the selectionof the individual problems to be dealt with in the first part.It should be borne in mind here that these discussions concerningthe concept of philosophy can be only provisional - provisionalnot just in regard to the course as a whole but provisional ingeneral. For the concept of philosophy is the most proper andhighest result of philosophy itself. Similarly, the question whetherphilosophy is at all possible or not can be decided only by philosophyitself.§ 2. The concept of philosophyPhilosophy and world-viewIn discussing the difference between scientific philosophy andphilosophy as world-view, we may fittingly start from the latternotion and begin with the term \"Weltanschauung,\"\"world-view.\" This expression is not a translation fromGreek, say, or Latin. There is no such expression as kosmotheoria.The word \"Weltanschauung\" is of specificallyGerman coinage; it was in fact coined within philosophy. It firstturns up in its natural meaning in Kant's Critique of Judgment- world-intuition in the sense of contemplation of the world givento the senses or, as Kant says, the mundus sensibilis -a beholding of the world as simple apprehension of nature in thebroadest sense. Goethe and Alexander von Humboldt thereupon usethe word in this way. This usage dies out in the thirties of thelast century under the influence of a new meaning given to theexpression \"Weltanschauung\" by the Romanticsand principally by Schelling. In the Introduction to the draftof a System of Philosophy of Nature, (1799), Schelling says: \"Intelligenceis productive in a double manner, either blindly and unconsciouslyor freely and consciously; it is unconsciously productive in Weltanschauungand consciously productive in the creation of an ideal world.\"Here Weltanschauung is directly assigned not to sense-observationbut to intelligence, albeit to unconscious intelligence. Moreover,the factor of productivity, the independent formative processof intuition, is emphasised. Thus the word approaches the meaningwe are familiar with today, a self-realised, productive as wellas conscious way of apprehending and interpreting the universeof beings. Schelling speaks of a schematism of Weltanschauung,a schematised form for the different possible world-views whichappear and take shape in fact. A view of the world, understoodin this way, does not have to be produced with a theoretical intentionand with the means of theoretical science. In his Phenomenologyof Spirit, Hegel speaks of a \"moral world-view.\"Görres makes use of the expression \"poetic world-view.\"Ranke speaks of the \"religious and Christian world-view.\"Mention is made sometimes of the democratic, sometimes of thepessimistic world-view or even of the medieval world-view. Schleiermachersays: \"It is only our world-view that makes our knowledgeof God complete.\" Bismarck at one point writes to his bride:\"What strange views of the world there are among clever people!\"From the forms and possibilities of world-view thus enumeratedit becomes clear that what is meant by this term is not only aconception of the contexture of natural things but at the sametime an interpretation of the sense and purpose of the human Dasein[the being that we are ourselves] and hence of history. A world-viewalways includes a view of life. A world-view grows out of an all-inclusivereflection on the world and the human Dasein, and thisagain happens in different ways, explicitly and consciously inindividuals or by appropriating an already prevalent world-view.We grow up within such a world-view and gradually become accustomedto it. Our world-view is determined by environment - people, race,class, developmental stage of culture. Every world-view thus individuallyformed arises out of a natural world-view, out of a range of conceptionsof the world and determinations of the human Dasein whichare at any particular time given more or less explicitly witheach such Dasein. We must distinguish the individuallyformed world-view or the cultural world-view from the naturalworld-view.A world-view is not a matter of theoretical knowledge, eitherin respect of its origin or in relation to its use. It is notsimply retained in memory like a parcel of cognitive property.Rather, it is a matter of a coherent conviction which determinesthe current affairs of life more or less expressly and directly.A world-view is related in its meaning to the particular contemporaryDasein at any given time. In this relationship to the Daseinthe world-view is a guide to it and a source of strength underpressure. Whether the world-view is determined by superstitionsand prejudices or is based purely on scientific knowledge andexperience or even, as is usually the case, is a mixture of superstitionand knowledge, prejudice and sober reason it all comes to thesame thing; nothing essential is changed.This indication of the characteristic traits of what we mean bythe term \"world-view\" may suffice here. A rigorous definitionof it would have to be gained in another way, as we shall see.In his Psychologie der Weltanschauungen, Jaspers says that\"when we speak of world-views we mean Ideas, what is ultimateand total in man, both subjectively, as life-experience and powerand character, and objectively, as a world having objective shape.\"For our purpose of distinguishing between philosophy as world-viewand scientific philosophy, it is above all important to see thatthe world-view, in its meaning, always arises out of the particularfactical existence of the human being in accordance with his facticalpossibilities of thoughtful reflection and attitude-formation,and it arises thus for this factical Dasein. The world-viewis something that in each case exists historically from, with,and for the factical Dasein. A philosophical world-viewis one that expressly and explicitly or at any rate preponderantlyhas to be worked out and brought about by philosophy, that is"
}
|
{
"content": "to say, by theoretical speculation, to the exclusion of artisticand religious interpretations of the world and the Dasein.This world-view is not a by-product of philosophy; its cultivation,rather, is the proper goal and nature of philosophy itself. Inits very concept philosophy is world-view philosophy, philosophyas world-view. If philosophy in the form of theoretical knowledgeof the world aims at what is universal in the world and ultimatefor the Dasein - the whence, the whither, and the whereforeof the world and life - then this differentiates it from the particularsciences, which always consider only a particular region of theworld and the Dasein, as well as from the artistic andreligious attitudes, which are not based primarily on the theoreticalattitude. It seems to be without question that philosophy hasas its goal the formation of a world-view. This task must definethe nature and concept of philosophy. Philosophy, it appears,is so essentially world-view philosophy that it would be preferableto reject this latter expression as an unnecessary overstatement.And what is even more, to propose to strive for a scientific philosophyis a misunderstanding. For the philosophical world-view, it issaid, naturally ought to be scientific. By this is meant: first,that it should take cognisance of the results of the differentsciences and use them in constructing the world-picture and theinterpretation of the Dasein; secondly, that it ought tobe scientific by forming the world-view in strict conformity withthe rules of scientific thought. This conception of philosophyas the formation of a world-view in a theoretical way is so muchtaken for granted that it commonly and widely defines the conceptof philosophy and consequently also prescribes for the popularmind what is to be and what ought to be expected of philosophy.Conversely, if philosophy does not give satisfactory answers tothe questions of world-view, the popular mind regards it as insignificant.Demands made on philosophy and attitudes taken toward it are governedby this notion of it as the scientific construction of a world-view.To determine whether philosophy succeeds or fails in this task,its history is examined for unequivocal confirmation that it dealsknowingly with the ultimate questions - of nature, of the soul,that is to say, of the freedom and history of man, of God.If philosophy is the scientific construction of a world-view,then the: distinction between \"scientific philosophy\"and \"philosophy as world-view\" vanishes. The two togetherconstitute the essence of philosophy, so that what is really emphasisedultimately is the task of the world-view. This seems also to bethe view of Kant, who put the scientific character of philosophyon a new basis. We need only recall the distinction he drew inthe introduction to the Logic between the academic andthe cosmic conceptions of philosophy. Here we turn to anoft-quoted Kantian distinction which apparently supports the distinctionbetween scientific philosophy and philosophy as world-view or,more exactly, serves as evidence for the fact that Kant himself,for whom the scientific character of philosophy was central, likewiseconceives of philosophy as philosophical world-view.According to the academic concept or, as Kant also says,in the scholastic sense, philosophy is the doctrine of the skillof reason and includes two parts: \"first, a sufficient stockof rational cognitions from concepts; and, secondly, a systematicinterconnection of these cognitions or a combination of them inthe idea of a whole.\" Kant is here thinking of the fact thatphilosophy in the scholastic sense includes the interconnectionof the formal principles of thought and of reason in general aswell as the discussion and determination of those concepts which,as a necessary presupposition, underlie our apprehension of theworld, that is to say, for Kant, of nature. According to the academicconcept, philosophy is the whole of all the formal and materialfundamental concepts and principles of rational knowledge.Kant defines the cosmic concept of philosophy or, as healso says, philosophy in the cosmopolitan sense, as follows: \"Butas regards philosophy in the cosmic sense (in sensu cosmico),it can also be called a science of the supreme maxims of the useof our reason, understanding by 'maxim' the inner principle ofchoice among diverse ends.\" Philosophy in the cosmic sensedeals with that for the sake of which all use of reason, includingthat of philosophy itself, is what it is. \"For philosophyin the latter sense is indeed the science of the relation of everyuse of knowledge and reason to the final purpose of human reason,under which, as the supreme end, all other ends are subordinatedand must come together into unity in it. In this cosmopolitansense the field of philosophy can be defined by the followingquestions: 1) What can I know? 2) What should I do? 3) What mayI hope? 4) What is man?\" At bottom, says Kant, the firstthree questions are concentrated in the fourth, \"What isman?\" For the determination of the final ends of human reasonresults from the explanation of what man is. It is to these endsthat philosophy in the academic sense also must relate.Does this Kantian separation between philosophy in the scholasticsense and philosophy in the cosmopolitan sense coincide with thedistinction between scientific philosophy and philosophy as world-view?Yes and no. Yes, since Kant after all makes a distinction withinthe concept of philosophy and, on the basis of this distinction,makes the questions of the end and limits of human existence central.No, since philosophy in the cosmic sense does not have the taskof developing a world-view in the designated sense. What Kantultimately has in mind as the task of philosophy in the cosmicsense, without being able to say so explicitly, is nothing butthe a priori and therefore ontological circumscriptionof the characteristics which belong to the essential nature ofthe human Dasein and which also generally determine theconcept of a world-view. As the most fundamental a prioridetermination of the essential nature of the human DaseinKant recognises the proposition: Man is a being which exists asits own end. Philosophy in the cosmic sense, as Kant understandsit, also has to do with determinations of essential nature. Itdoes not seek a specific factual account of the merely factuallyknown world and the merely factually lived life; rather, it seeksto delimit what belongs to world in general, to the Daseinin general, and thus to world-view in general. Philosophy in thecosmic sense has for Kant exactly the same methodological characteras philosophy in the academic sense, except that for reasons which"
}
|
{
"content": "we shall not discuss here in further detail Kant does not seethe connection between the two. More precisely, he does not seethe basis for establishing both concepts on a common originalground. We shall deal with this later on. For the present it isclear only that, if philosophy is viewed as being the scientificconstruction of a world-view, appeal should not be made to Kant.Fundamentally, Kant recognises only philosophy as science.A world-view, as we saw, springs in every case from a facticalDasein in accordance with its factical possibilities, andit is what it is always for this particular Dasein. Thisin no way asserts a relativism of world-views. What a world-viewfashioned in this way says can be formulated in propositions andrules which are related in their meaning to a specific reallyexisting world, to the particular factically existing Dasein.Every world-view and life-view posits; that is to say, it is relatedbeing-ly to some being or beings. It posits a being, somethingthat is; it is positive. A world-view belongs to each Daseinand, like this Dasein, it is always in fact determinedhistorically. To the world-view there belongs this multiple positivitythat it is always rooted in a Dasein which is in such andsuch a way; that as such it relates to the existing world andpoints to the factically existent Dasein. It is just becausethis positivity - that is, the relatedness to beings, to worldthat is, Dasein that is - belongs to the essence of theworld-view, and thus in general to the formation of the world-view,that the formation of a world-view cannot be the task of philosophy.To say this is not to exclude but to include the idea that philosophyitself is a distinctive primal form of world-view. Philosophycan and perhaps must show, among many other things, that somethinglike a world-view belongs to the essential nature of the Dasein.Philosophy can and must define what in general constitutes thestructure of a world-view. But it can never develop and positsome specific world-view qua just this or that particular one.Philosophy is not essentially the formation of a world-view; butperhaps just on this account it has an elementary and fundamentalrelation to all world-view formation, even to that which is nottheoretical but factually historical.The thesis that world-view formation does not belong to the taskof philosophy is valid, of course, only on the presuppositionthat philosophy does not relate in a positive manner to some beingqua this or that particular being, that it does not posit a being.Can this presupposition that philosophy does not relate positivelyto beings, as the sciences do, be justified? What then is philosophysupposed to concern itself with if not with beings, with thatwhich is, as well as with the whole of what is? What is not, issurely the nothing. Should philosophy, then, as absolute science,have the nothing as its theme? What can there be apart from nature,history, God, space, number? We say of each of these, even thoughin a different sense, that it is. We call it a being. In relatingto it, whether theoretically or practically, we are comportingourselves toward a being. Beyond all these beings there is nothing.Perhaps there is no other being beyond what has been enumerated,but perhaps, as in the German idiom for \"there is,\"es gibt [literally, it gives], still something else is given,something else which indeed is not but which nevertheless, ina sense yet to be determined, is given. Even more. In the endsomething is given which must be given if we are to be able tomake beings accessible to us as beings and comport ourselves towardthem, something which, to be sure, is not but which must be givenif we are to experience and understand any beings at all. We areable to grasp beings as such, as beings, only if we understandsomething like being. If we did not understand, even though atfirst roughly and without conceptual comprehension, what actualitysignifies, then the actual would remain hidden from us. If wedid not understand what reality means, then the real would remaininaccessible. If we did not understand what life and vitalitysignify, then we would not be able to comport ourselves towardliving beings. If we did not understand what existence and existentialitysignify, then we ourselves would not be able to exist as Dasein.If we did not understand what permanence and constancy signify,then constant geometric relations or numerical proportions wouldremain a secret to us. We must understand actuality, reality,vitality, existentiality, constancy in order to be able to comportourselves positively toward specifically actual, real, living,existing, constant beings. We must understand being so that wemay be able to be given over to a world that is, so that we canexist in it and be our own Dasein itself as a being. Wemust be able to understand actuality before all factual experienceof actual beings. This understanding of actuality or of beingin the widest sense as over against the experience of beings isin a certain sense earlier than the experience of beings. To saythat the understanding of being precedes all factual experienceof beings does not mean that we would first need to have an explicitconcept of being in order to experience beings theoretically orpractically. We must understand being - being, which may no longeritself be called a being, being, which does not occur as a beingamong other beings but which nevertheless must be given and infact is given in the understanding of being.§ 3. Philosophy as science of beingWe assert now that being is the proper and sole theme of philosophy.This is not our own invention; it is a way of putting the themewhich comes to life at the beginning of philosophy in antiquity,and it assumes its most grandiose form in Hegel's logic. At presentwe are merely asserting that being is the proper and sole themeof philosophy. Negatively, this means that philosophy is not ascience of beings but of being or, as the Greek expression goes,ontology. We take this expression in the widest possiblesense and not in the narrower one it has, say, in Scholasticismor in modern philosophy in Descartes and Leibniz.A discussion of the basic problems of phenomenology then is tantamountto providing fundamental substantiation for this assertion thatphilosophy is the science of being and establishing how it issuch. The discussion should show the possibility and necessity"
}
|
{
"content": "of the absolute science of being and demonstrate its characterin the very process of the inquiry. Philosophy is the theoreticalconceptual interpretation of being, of being's structure and itspossibilities. Philosophy is ontological. In contrast, a world-viewis a positing knowledge of beings and a positing attitude towardbeings; it is not ontological but ontical. The formation of aworld-view falls outside the range of philosophy's tasks, butnot because philosophy is in an incomplete condition and doesnot yet suffice to give a unanimous and universally cogent answerto the questions pertinent to world-views; rather, the formationof a world-view falls outside the range of philosophy's tasksbecause philosophy in principle does not relate to beings. Itis not because of a defect that philosophy renounces the taskof forming a world-view but because of a distinctive priority:it deals with what every positing of beings, even the positingdone by a world-view, must already presuppose essentially. Thedistinction between philosophy as science and philosophy as world-viewis untenable, not - as it seemed earlier - because scientificphilosophy has as its chief end the formation of a world-viewand thus would have to be elevated to the level of a world-viewphilosophy, but because the notion of a world-view philosophyis simply inconceivable. For it implies that philosophy, as scienceof being, is supposed to adopt specific attitudes toward and positspecific things about beings. To anyone who has even an approximateunderstanding of the concept of philosophy and its history, thenotion of a world-view philosophy is an absurdity. If one termof the distinction between scientific philosophy and world-viewphilosophy is inconceivable, then the other, too, must be inappropriatelyconceived. Once it has been seen that world-view philosophy isimpossible in principle if it is supposed to be philosophy, thenthe differentiating adjective \"scientific\" is no longernecessary for characterising philosophy. That philosophy is scientificis implied in its very concept. It can be shown historically thatat bottom all the great philosophies since antiquity more or lessexplicitly took themselves to be, and as such sought to be, ontology.In a similar way, however, it can also be shown that these attemptsfailed over and over again and why they had to fail. I gave thehistorical proof of this in my courses of the last two semesters,one on ancient philosophy and the other on the history of philosophyfrom Thomas Aquinas to Kant. We shall not now refer to this historicaldemonstration of the nature of philosophy, a demonstration havingits own peculiar character. Let us rather in the whole of thepresent course try to establish philosophy on its own basis, sofar as it is a work of human freedom. Philosophy must legitimateby its own resources its claim to be universal ontology.In the meantime, however, the statement that philosophy is thescience of being remains a pure assertion. Correspondingly, theelimination of world-view formation from the range of philosophicaltasks has not yet been warranted. We raised this distinction betweenscientific philosophy and world-view philosophy in order to givea provisional clarification of the concept of philosophy and todemarcate it from the popular concept. The clarification and demarcation,again, were provided in order to account for the selection ofthe concrete phenomenological problems to be dealt with next andto remove from the choice the appearance of complete arbitrariness.Philosophy is the science of being. For the future we shall meanby \"philosophy\" scientific philosophy and nothing else.In conformity with this usage, all non-philosophical scienceshave as their theme some being or beings, and indeed in such away that they are in every case antecedently given as beings tothose sciences. They are posited by them in advance; they area positum for them. All the propositions of the non-philosophicalsciences, including those of mathematics, are positive propositions.Hence, to distinguish them from philosophy, we shall call allnon-philosophical sciences positive sciences. Positive sciencesdeal with that which is, with beings; that is to say, they alwaysdeal with specific domains, for instance, nature. Within a givendomain scientific research again cuts out particular spheres:nature as physically material lifeless nature and nature as livingnature. It divides the sphere of the living into individual fields:the plant world, the animal world. Another domain of beings ishistory; its spheres are art history, political history, historyof science, and history of religion. Still another domain of beingsis the pure space of geometry, which is abstracted from spacepre-theoretically uncovered in the environing world. The beingsof these domains are familiar to us even if at first and for themost part we are not in a position to delimit them sharply andclearly from one another. We can, of course, always name, as aprovisional description which satisfies practically the purposeof positive science, some being that falls within the domain.We can always bring before ourselves, as it were, a particularbeing from a particular domain as an example. Historically, theactual partitioning of domains comes about not according to somepreconceived plan of a system of science but in conformity withthe current research problems of the positive sciences.We can always easily bring forward and picture to ourselves somebeing belonging to any given domain. As we are accustomed to say,we are able to think something about it. What is the situationhere with philosophy's object? Can something like being be imagined?If we try to do this, doesn't our head start to swim? Indeed,at first we are baffled and find ourselves clutching at thin airA being - that's something, a table, a chair, a tree, the sky,a body, some words, an action. A being, yes, indeed - but being?It looks like nothing - and no less a thinker than Hegel saidthat being and nothing are the same. Is philosophy as scienceof being the science of nothing? At the outset of our considerations,without raising any false hopes and without mincing matters, wemust confess that under the heading of being we can at first thinkto ourselves nothing. On the other hand, it is just as certainthat we are constantly thinking being. We think being just asoften as, daily, on innumerable occasions, whether aloud or silently,we say \"This is such and such,\" \"That otheris not so,\" \"That was,\" \"Itwill be.\" In each use of a verb we have already thought,and have always in some way understood, being. We understand immediately\"Today is Saturday; the sun is up.\" We understand the\"is\" we use in speaking, although we do not comprehend"
}
|
{
"content": "it conceptually. The meaning of this \"is\" remains closedto us. This understanding of the \"is\" and of being ingeneral is so much a matter of course that it was possible forthe dogma to spread in philosophy uncontested to the present daythat being is the simplest and most self-evident concept, thatit is neither susceptible of nor in need of definition. Appealis made to common sense. But wherever common sense is taken tobe philosophy's highest court of appeal, philosophy must becomesuspicious. In On the Essence of Philosophical Criticism,Hegel says: \"Philosophy by its very nature is esoteric; foritself it is neither made for the masses nor is it susceptibleof being cooked up for them. It is philosophy only because itgoes exactly contrary to the understanding and thus even moreso to 'sound common sense,' the so-called healthy human understanding,which actually means the local and temporary vision of some limitedgeneration of human beings. To that generation the world of philosophyis in and for itself a topsy-turvy, an inverted, world.The demands and standards of common sense have no right to claimany validity or to represent any authority in regard to what philosophyis and what it is not.What if being were the most complex and most obscure concept?What f arriving at the concept of being were the most urgent taskof philosophy, the task which has to be taken up ever anew? Today,when philosophising is so barbarous, so much like a St. Vitus'dance, as perhaps in no other period of the cultural history ofthe West, and when nevertheless the resurrection of metaphysicsis hawked up and down all the streets, what Aristotle says on oneof his most important investigations in the Metaphysicshas been completely forgotten. \"That which has been soughtfor from of old and now and in the future and constantly, andthat on which inquiry founders over and over again, is the problemWhat is being?\" If philosophy is the science of being, thenthe first and last and basic problem of philosophy must be, Whatdoes being signify? Whence can something like being in generalbe understood? How is understanding of being at all possible?§ 4. The four theses about beingand the basic problems of phenomenologyBefore we broach these fundamental questions, it will be worthwhilefirst to make ourselves familiar for once with discussions aboutbeing. To this end we shall deal in the first part of the coursewith some characteristic theses about being as individual concretephenomenological problems, theses that have been advocated inthe course of the history of Western philosophy since antiquity.In this connection we are interested, not in the historical contextsof the philosophical inquiries within which these theses aboutbeing make their appearance, but in their specifically inherentcontent. This content is to be discussed critically, so that wemay make the transition from it to the above-mentioned basic problemsof the science of being. The discussion of these theses shouldat the same time render us familiar with the phenomenologicalway of dealing with problems relating to being. We choose foursuch theses:Kant's thesis: Being is not a real predicate.The thesis of medieval ontology (Scholasticism) which goesback to Aristotle: To the constitution of the being of a beingthere belong (a) whatness, essence (Was-sein, essentia),and (b) existence or extantness (existentia, Vorhandensein).The thesis of modern ontology: The basic ways of being arethe being of nature (res extensa) and the being of mind (rescogitans).The thesis of logic in the broadest sense: Every being, regardlessof its particular way of being, can be addressed and talked aboutby means of the \"is.\" The being of the copula.These theses seem at first to have been gathered together arbitrarily.Looked at more closely, however, they are interconnected in amost intimate way. Attention to what is denoted in these thesesleads to the insight that they cannot be brought up adequately- not even as problems - as long as the fundamental questionof the whole science of being has not been put and answered: thequestion of the meaning of being in general. The second partof our course will deal with this question. Discussion of thebasic question of the meaning of being in general and of the problemsarising from that question constitutes the entire stock of basicproblems of phenomenology in their systematic order and theirfoundation. For the present we delineate the range of these problemsonly roughly.On what path can we advance toward the meaning of being in general?Is not the question of the meaning of being and the task of anelucidation of this concept a pseudo-problem if, as usual, theopinion is held dogmatically that being is the most general andsimplest concept? What is the source for defining this conceptand in what direction is it to be resolved? Something like being reveals itself to us in the understandingof being, an understanding that lies at the root of all comportmenttoward beings. Comportment toward beings belongs, on its part,to a definite being, the being which we ourselves are, the humanDasein. It is to the human Dasein that there belongsthe understanding of being which first of all makes possible everycomportment toward beings. The understanding of being has itselfthe mode of being of the human Dasein. The more originallyand appropriately we define this being in regard to the structureof its being, that is to say, ontologically, the more securelywe are placed in a position to comprehend in its structure theunderstanding of being that belongs to the Dasein, andthe more clearly and unequivocally the question can then be posed,What is it that makes this understanding of being possible atall? Whence - that is, from which antecedently given horizon -do we understand the like of being?The analysis of the understanding of being in regard to what isspecific to this understanding and what is understood in it orits intelligibility presupposes an analytic of the Daseinordered to that end. This analytic has the task of exhibitingthe basic constitution of the human Dasein and of characterisingthe meaning of the Dasein's being. In this ontologicalanalytic of the Dasein, the original constitution of theDasein's being is revealed to be temporality. Theinterpretation of temporality leads to a more radical understandingand conceptual comprehension of time than has been possible hithertoin philosophy. The familiar concept of time as traditionally treatedin philosophy is only an offshoot of temporality as the originalmeaning of the Dasein. If temporality constitutes the meaning"
}
|
{
"content": "of the being of the human Dasein and if understanding ofbeing belongs to the constitution of the Dasein's being,then this understanding of being, too, must be possible only onthe basis of temporality. Hence there arises the prospect of apossible confirmation of the thesis that time is the horizon fromwhich something like being becomes at all intelligible. We interpretbeing by way of time (tempus). The interpretation is aTemporal one. The fundamental subject of research in ontology,as determination of the meaning of being by way of time, is Temporality.We said that ontology is the science of being. But being is alwaysthe being of a being. Being is essentially different from a being,from beings. How is the distinction between being and beings tobe grasped? How can its possibility be explained? If being isnot itself a being, how then does it nevertheless belong to beings,since, after all, beings and only beings are? What does it meanto say that being belongs to beings? The correct answer to thisquestion is the basic presupposition needed to set about the problemsof ontology regarded as the science of being. We must be ableto bring out clearly the difference between being and beings inorder to make something like being the theme of inquiry. Thisdistinction is not arbitrary; rather, it is the one by which thetheme of ontology and thus of philosophy itself is first of allattained. It is a distinction which is first and foremost constitutivefor ontology. We call it the ontological difference - thedifferentiation between being and beings. Only by making thisdistinction - krinein in Greek - not between one beingand another being but between being and beings do we first enterthe field of philosophical research. Only by taking this criticalstance do we keep our own standing inside the field of philosophy.Therefore, in distinction from the sciences of the things thatare, of beings, ontology, or philosophy in general, is the criticalscience, or the science of the inverted world, With this distinctionbetween being and beings and that selection of being as themewe depart in principle from the domain of beings. We surmountit, transcend it. We can also call the science of being, a criticalscience, transcendental science. In doing so we are notsimply taking over unaltered the concept of the transcendentalin Kant, although we are indeed adopting its original sense andits true tendency, perhaps still concealed from Kant. We are surmountingbeings in order to reach being. Once having made the ascent weshall not again descend to a being, which, say, might lie likeanother world behind the familiar beings. The transcendental scienceof being has nothing to do with popular metaphysics, which dealswith some being behind the known beings; rather, the scientificconcept of metaphysics is identical with the concept of philosophyin general - critically transcendental science of being, ontology.It is easily seen that the ontological difference can be clearedup and carried out unambiguously for ontological inquiry onlyif and when the meaning of being in general has been explicitlybrought to light, that is to say, only when it has been shownhow temporality makes possible the distinguishability betweenbeing and beings. Only on the basis of this consideration canthe Kantian thesis that being is not a real predicate be givenits original sense and adequately explained.Every being is something, it has its what and as such hasa specific possible mode of being. In the first part ofour course, while discussing the second thesis, we shall showthat ancient as well as medieval ontology dogmatically enunciatedthis proposition - that to each being there belongs a what andway of being, essentia and existentia - as ifit were self-evident. For us the question arises, Can the reasonevery being must and can have a what, a ti, and a possibleway of being be grounded in the meaning of being itself, thatis to say, Temporally? Do these characteristics, whatness andway of being, taken with sufficient breadth, belong to being itself?\"Is\" being articulated by means of these characteristicsin accordance with its essential nature? With this we are nowconfronted by the problem of the basic articulation of being,the question of the necessary belonging-together of whatnessand way-of-being and of the belonging of the two ofthem in their unity to the idea of being in general.Every being has a way-of-being. The question is whether this way-of-beinghas the same character in every being - as ancient ontology believedand subsequent periods have basically had to maintain even downto the present - or whether individual ways-of-being are mutuallydistinct. Which are the basic ways of being? Is there a multiplicity?How is the variety of ways-of-being possible and how is it atall intelligible, given the meaning of being? How can we speakat all of a unitary concept of being despite the variety of ways-of-being?These questions can be consolidated into the problem of thepossible modifications of being and the unity of being's variety.Every being with which we have any dealings can be addressed andspoken of by saying \"it is\" thus and so, regardlessof its specific mode of being. We meet with a being's being inthe understanding of being. It is understanding that first ofall opens up or, as we say, discloses or reveals something likebeing. Being is given only in the specific disclosedness thatcharacterises the understanding of being. But we call the disclosednessof something truth. That is the proper concept of truth, as italready begins to dawn in antiquity. Being is given only if thereis disclosure, that is to say, if there is truth. But there istruth only if a being exists which opens up, which discloses,and indeed in such a way that disclosure itself belongs to themode of being of this being. We ourselves are such a being. TheDasein Itself exists in the truth. To the Daseinthere belongs essentially a disclosed world and with that thedisclosedness of the Dasein itself. The Dasein,by the nature of its existence, is \"in\" truth, and onlybecause it is \"in\" truth does it have the possibilityof being \"in\" untruth. Being is given only if truth,hence if the Dasein, exists. And only for this reason isit not merely possible to address beings but within certain limitssometimes - presupposing that the Dasein exists - necessary.We shall consolidate these problems of the interconnectednessbetween being and truth into the problem of the truth-character"
}
|
{
"content": "of being (veritas transcendentalis).We have thus identified four groups of problems that constitutethe content of the second part of the course: the problem of theontological difference, the problem of the basic articulationof being, the problem of the possible modifications of being inits ways of being, the problem of the truth-character of being.The four theses treated provisionally in the first part correspondto these four basic problems. More precisely, looking backwardfrom the discussion of the basic problems in the second half,we see that the problems with which we are provisionally occupiedin the first part, following the lead of these theses, are notaccidental but grow out of the inner systematic coherence of thegeneral problem of being.§ 5. The character of ontological methodThe three basic components of Phenomenological methodOur conduct of the ontological investigation in the first andsecond parts opens up for us at the same time a view of the wayin which these phenomenological investigations proceed. Thisraises the question of the character of method in ontology. Thuswe come to the third part of the course: the scientific methodof ontology and the idea of phenomenology.The method of ontology, that is, of philosophy in general, isdistinguished by the fact that ontology has nothing in commonwith any method of any of the other sciences, all of which aspositive sciences deal with beings. On the other hand, it is preciselythe analysis of the truth-character of being which shows thatbeing also is, as it were, based in a being, namely, in the Dasein.Being is given only if the understanding of being, hence the Dasein,exists. This being accordingly lays claim to a distinctive priorityin ontological inquiry. It makes itself manifest in all discussionsof the basic problems of ontology and above all in the fundamentalquestion of the meaning of being in general. The elaboration ofthis question and its answer requires a general analytic of theDasein. Ontology has for its fundamental discipline theanalytic of the Dasein. This implies at the same time thatontology cannot be established in a purely ontological manner.Its possibility is referred back to a being, that is, to somethingontical - the Dasein. Ontology has an ontical foundation,a fact which is manifest over and over again in the history ofphilosophy down to the present. For example, it is expressed asearly as Aristotle's dictum that the first science, the scienceof being, is theology. As the work of the freedom of the humanDasein, the possibilities and destinies of philosophy arebound up with man's existence, and thus with temporality and withhistoricality, and indeed in a more original sense than is anyother science. Consequently, in clarifying the scientific characterof ontology, the first task is the demonstration of its onticalfoundation and the characterisation of this foundation itself.The second task consists in distinguishing the mode ofknowing operative in ontology as science of being, and this requiresus to work out the methodological structure of ontological-transcendentaldifferentiation. In early antiquity it was already seen thatbeing and its attributes in a certain way underlie beings andprecede them and so are a proteron, an earlier. The term denotingthis character by which being precedes beings is the expressiona priori, apriority, being earlier or prior. Asa priori, being is earlier than beings. The meaning ofthis a priori, the sense of the earlier and its possibility,has never been cleared up. The question has not even once beenraised as to why the determinations of being and being itselfmust have is character of priority and how such priority is possible.To be earlier is a determination of time, but it does not pertainto the temporal order of the time that we measure by the clock;rather, it is an earlier that belongs to the \"inverted world.\"Therefore, this earlier which characterises being is taken bythe popular understanding to be the later. Only the interpretationof being by way of temporality can make clear why and how thisfeature of being earlier, apriority, goes together with being.The a priori character of being and of all the structuresof being accordingly calls for a specific kind of approach andway of apprehending being - a priori cognition.The basic components of a priori cognition constitute whatwe call phenomenology. Phenomenology is the name for themethod of ontology, that is, of scientific philosophy. Rightlyconceived, phenomenology is the concept of a method. It is thereforeprecluded from the start that phenomenology should pronounce anytheses about being which have specific content, thus adoptinga so-called standpoint.We shall not enter into detail concerning which ideas about phenomenologyare current today, instigated in part by phenomenology itself.We shall touch briefly on just one example. It has been said thatmy work is Catholic phenomenology - presumably because it ismy conviction that thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotusalso understood something of philosophy, perhaps more than themoderns. But the concept of a Catholic phenomenology is even moreabsurd than the concept of a Protestant mathematics. Philosophyas science of being is fundamentally distinct in method from anyother science. The distinction in method between, say, mathematicsand classical philology is not as great as the difference betweenmathematics and philosophy or between philology and philosophy.The breadth of the difference between philosophy and the positivesciences, to which mathematics and philology belong, cannot atall be estimated quantitatively. In ontology, being is supposedto be grasped and comprehended conceptually by way of the phenomenologicalmethod, in connection with which we may observe that, while phenomenologycertainly arouses lively interest today, what it seeks and aimsat was already vigorously pursued in Western philosophy from thevery beginning.Being is to be laid hold of and made our theme. Being is alwaysbeing of beings and accordingly it becomes accessible at firstonly by starting with some being. Here the phenomenological visionwhich does the apprehending must indeed direct itself toward abeing, but it has to do so in such a way that the being of thisbeing is thereby brought out so that it may be possible to mathematiseit. Apprehension of being, ontological investigation, always turns,at first and necessarily, to some being; but then, in a preciseway, it is led away from that being and led back to its being.We call this basic component of phenomenological method - theleading back or reduction of investigative vision from a naivelyapprehended being to being phenomenological reduction.We are thus adopting a central term of Husserl's phenomenology"
}
|
{
"content": "in its literal wording though not in its substantive intent. ForHusserl the phenomenological reduction, which he worked outfor the first time expressly in the Ideas Toward a Pure Phenomenologyand Phenomenological Philosophy (1913), is the method of leadingphenomenological vision from the natural attitude of the humanbeing whose life is involved in the world of things and personsback to the transcendental life of consciousness and its noetic-noematicexperiences, in which objects are constituted as correlates ofconsciousness. For us phenomenological reduction means leadingphenomenological vision back from the apprehension of a being,whatever may be the character of that apprehension, to the understandingof the being of this being (projecting upon the way it is unconcealed).Like every other scientific method, phenomenological method growsand changes due to the progress made precisely with its help intothe subjects under investigation. Scientific method is never atechnique. As soon as it becomes one it has fallen away from itsown proper nature.Phenomenological reduction as the leading of our vision from beingsto being nevertheless is not the only basic component of phenomenologicalmethod; in fact, it is not even the central component. For thisguidance of vision back from beings to being requires at the sametime that we should bring ourselves forward toward being itself.Pure aversion from beings is a merely negative methodologicalmeasure which not only needs to be supplemented by a positiveone but expressly requires us to be led toward being; it thusrequires guidance. Being does not become accessible like a being.We do not simply find it in front of us. As is to be shown, itmust always be brought to view in a free projection. This projectingof the antecedently given being upon its being and the structuresof its being we call phenomenological construction.But the method of phenomenology is likewise not exhausted by phenomenologicalconstruction. We have heard that every projection of being occursin a reductive recursion from beings. The consideration of beingtakes its start from beings. This commencement is obviously alwaysdetermined by the factual experience of beings and the range ofpossibilities of experience that at any time are peculiar to afactical Dasein, and hence to the historical situationof a philosophical investigation. It is not the case that at alltimes and for everyone all beings and all specific domains ofbeings are accessible in the same way; and, even if beings areaccessible inside the range of experience, the question stillremains whether, within naive and common experience, they arealready suitably understood in their specific mode of being. Becausethe Dasein is historical in its own existence, possibilitiesof access and modes of interpretation of beings are themselvesdiverse, varying in different historical circumstances. A glanceat the history of philosophy shows that many domains of beingswere discovered very early - nature, space, the soul - but that,nevertheless, they could not yet be comprehended in their specificbeing. As early as antiquity a common or average concept of beingcame to light, which was employed for the interpretation of allthe beings of the various domains of being and their modes ofbeing, although their specific being itself, taken expressly inits structure, was not made into a problem and could not be defined.Thus Plato saw quite well that the soul, with its logos, is abeing different from sensible being. But he was not in a positionto demarcate the specific mode of being of this being from themode of being of any other being or non-being. Instead, for himas well as for Aristotle and subsequent thinkers down to Hegel,and all the more so for their successors, all ontological investigationsproceed within an average concept of being in general. Even theontological investigation which we are now conducting is determinedby its historical situation and, therewith, by certain possibilitiesof approaching beings and by the preceding philosophical tradition.The store of basic philosophical concepts derived from the philosophicaltradition is still so influential today that this effect of traditioncan hardly be overestimated. It is for this reason that all philosophicaldiscussion, even the most radical attempt to begin all over again,is pervaded by traditional concepts and thus by traditional horizonsand traditional angles of approach, which we cannot assume withunquestionable certainty to have arisen originally and genuinelyfrom the domain of being and the constitution of being they claimto comprehend. It is for this reason that there necessarily belongsto the conceptual interpretation of being and its structures,that is, to the reductive construction of being, a destruction- a critical process in which the traditional concepts, whichat first must necessarily be employed, are de-constructed downto the sources from which they were drawn. Only by means of thisdestruction can ontology fully assure itself in a phenomenologicalway of the genuine character of its concepts.These three basic components of phenomenological metho - reduction,construction, destruction - belong together in their content andmust receive grounding in their mutual pertinence. Constructionin philosophy is necessarily destruction, that is to say, a de-constructingof traditional concepts carried out in a historical recursionto the tradition. And this is not a negation of the traditionor a condemnation of it as worthless; quite the reverse, it signifiesprecisely a positive appropriation of tradition. Because destructionbelongs to construction, philosophical cognition is essentiallyat the same time, in a certain sense, historical cognition. Historyof philosophy, as it is called, belongs to the concept of philosophyas science, to the concept of phenomenological investigation.The history of philosophy is not an arbitrary appendage to thebusiness of teaching philosophy, which provides an occasion forpicking up some convenient and easy theme for passing an examinationor even for just looking around to see how things were in earliertimes. Knowledge of the history of philosophy is intrinsicallyunitary on its own account, and the specific mode of historicalcognition in philosophy differs in its object from all other scientificknowledge of history.The method of ontology thus delineated makes it possible to characterisethe idea of phenomenology distinctively as the scientific procedureof philosophy. We therewith gain the possibility of defining theconcept of philosophy more concretely. Thus our considerationsin the third part lead back again to the starting point of thecourse.Further Reading:Husserl |Nietzsche |Jaspers |Existentialism |Being & Existence |Sartre |BiographyPhilosophy Archive @ marxists.org"
}
|
{
"content": "Edmund Husserl (1937)The Crisis of European SciencesSource: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1954) publ. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1970. Sections 22 - 25 and 57 - 68, 53 pages in all.Part II: Clarification of the Origin of the Modern Opposition between Physicalistic Objectivism and Transcendental Subjectivism. ...§ 22. Locke's naturalistic-epistemological psychology.IT IS IN THE EMPIRICIST development, as we know, that the newpsychology, which was required as a correlate to pure naturalscience when the latter was separated off, is brought to its firstconcrete execution, Thus it is concerned with investigations ofintrospective psychology in the field of the soul, which has nowbeen separated from the body, as well as with physiological andpsychophysical explanations. On the other hand, this psychologyis of service to a theory of knowledge which, compared with theCartesian one, is completely new and very differently worked out.In Locke's great work this is the actual intent from the start.It offers itself as a new attempt to accomplish precisely whatDescartes's Meditations intended to accomplish: an epistemologicalgrounding of the objectivity of the objective sciences. The scepticalposture of this intent is evident from the beginning in questionslike those of the scope, the extent, and the degrees of certaintyof human knowledge. Locke senses nothing of the depths of theCartesian epoche [critique] and of the reduction to theego. He simply takes over the ego as soul, which becomes acquainted,in the self-evidence of self-experience, with its inner states,acts, and capacities. Only what inner self-experience shows, onlyour own \"ideas,\" are immediately, self-evidently given.Everything in the external world is inferred.What comes first, then, is the internal-psychological analysispurely on the basis of the inner experience - whereby use is made,quite naively, of the experiences of other human beings and ofthe conception of self experience as what belongs to me onehuman being among human beings; that is, the objective validityof inferences to others is used; just as, in general, the wholeinvestigation proceeds as an objective psychological one, indeedeven has recourse to the physiological - when it is preciselyall this objectivity, after all, which is in question.The actual problem of Descartes, that of transcending egological(interpreted as internal-psychological) validities, includingall manners of inference pertaining to the external world, thequestion of how these, which are, after all, themselves cogitationesin the encapsuled soul, are able to justify assertions about extrapsychicbeing - these problems disappear in Locke or turn into the problemof the psychological genesis of the real experiences of validityor of the faculties belonging to them. That sense-data, extractedfrom the arbitrariness of their production, are affections fromthe outside and announce bodies in the external world, is nota problem for him but something taken for granted.Especially portentous for future psychology and theory of knowledgeis the fact that Locke makes no use of the Cartesian first introductionof the cogitatio as cogitatio of cogitata- that is, intentionality; he does not recognise it as a subjectof investigation (indeed the most authentic subject of the foundation-layinginvestigations) . He is blind to the whole distinction. The soulis something self-contained and real by itself, as is a body;in naive naturalism the soul is now taken to be like an isolatedspace, like a writing tablet, in his famous simile, on which psychicdata come and go. This data-sensationalism, together with thedoctrine of outer and inner sense, dominates psychology and thetheory of knowledge for centuries, even up to the present day;and in spite of the familiar struggle against \"psychic atomism,\"the basic sense of this doctrine does not change. Of course onespeaks quite unavoidably, even in the Lockean terminology, ofperceptions, representations \"of\" things, or of believing\"in something,\" willing \"something,\" and thelike. But no consideration is given to the fact that in the perceptions,in the experiences of consciousness themselves, that of whichwe are conscious is included as such - that the perception isin itself a perception of something, of \"this tree.\"How is the life of the soul, which is through and through a lifeof consciousness, the intentional life of the ego, which has objectsof which it is conscious, deals with them through knowing, valuing,etc. - how is it supposed to be seriously investigated if intentionalityis overlooked? How can the problems of reason be attacked at all?Can they be attacked at all as psychological problems? In theend, behind the psychological-epistemological problems, do wenot find the problems of the \"ego\" of the Cartesianepoche, touched upon but not grasped by Descartes? Perhapsthese are not unimportant questions, which give a direction inadvance to the reader who thinks for himself. In any case theyare an indication of what will become a serious problem in laterparts of this work, or rather will serve as a way to a philosophywhich can really be carried through \"without prejudice,\"a philosophy with the most radical grounding in its setting ofproblems, in its method, and in work which is systematically accomplished.It is also of interest that the Lockean scepticism in respectto the rational ideal of science, and its limitation of the scopeof the new sciences (which are supposed to retain their validity),leads to a new sort of agnosticism. It is not that the possibilityof science is completely denied, as in ancient scepticism, althoughagain unknowable things-in-themselves are assumed. But our humanscience depends exclusively on our representations and concept-formations;by means of these we may, of course, make inferences extendingto what is transcendent; but in principle we cannot obtain actualrepresentations of the things-in-themselves, representations whichadequately express the proper essence of these things. We haveadequate representations and knowledge only of what is in ourown soul.§ 23. Berkeley. David Hume's psychology as fictionalistictheory of knowledge: the \"bankruptcy\" of philosophyand science.LOCKE'S NAÏVETÉS and inconsistencies lead to a rapidfurther development of his empiricism, which pushes toward a paradoxicalidealism and finally ends in a consummated absurdity. The foundationcontinues to be sensationalism and what appears to be obvious,i.e., that the sole indubitable ground of all knowledge is self-experienceand its realm of immanent data. Starting from here, Berkeley reducesthe bodily things which appear in natural experience to the complexesof sense-data themselves through which they appear. No inferenceis thinkable, according to Berkeley, through which conclusionscould be drawn from these sense-data about anything but othersuch data. It could only be inductive inference, i.e., inferencegrowing out of the association of ideas. Matter existing in itself,"
}
|
{
"content": "a je ne sais quoi, according to Locke, is for Berkeleya philosophical invention. It is also significant that at thesame time he dissolves the manner in which rational natural sciencebuilds concepts and transforms it into a sensationalistic critiqueof knowledge.In this direction, Hume goes on to the end. All categories ofobjectivity - the scientific ones through which an objective,extrapsychic world is thought in scientific life, and the prescientificones through which it is thought in everyday life - are fictions.First come the mathematical concepts: number, magnitude, continuum,geometrical figure, etc. We would say that they are methodicallynecessary idealisations of what is given intuitively. For Hume,however, they are fictions; and the same is true, accordingly,of the whole of supposedly apodictic mathematics. The origin ofthese fictions can be explained perfectly well psychologically(i.e., in terms of immanent sensationalism), namely, through theimmanent lawfulness of the associations and the relations betweenideas. But even the categories of the prescientific world, ofthe straightforwardly intuited world - those of corporeity (i.e.,the identity of persisting bodies supposedly found in immediate,experiencing intuition), as well as the supposedly experiencedidentity of the person - are nothing but fictions. We say, forexample, \"that\" tree over there, and distinguish fromit its changing manners of appearing. But immanently, psychically,there is nothing there but these \"manners of appearing.\"These are complexes of data, and again and again other complexesof data - \"bound together,\" regulated, to be sure, by association,which explains the illusion of experiencing something identical.The same is true of the person: an identical \"I\" isnot a datum but a ceaselessly changing bundle of data. Identityis a psychological fiction. To the fictions of this sort alsobelongs causality, or necessary succession. Immanent experienceexhibits only a post hoc. The propter hoc, the necessityof the succession, is a fictive misconstruction. Thus, in Hume'sTreatise, the world in general, nature, the universe ofidentical bodies, the world of identical persons, and accordinglyalso objective science, which knows these in their objective truth,are transformed into fiction. To be consistent, we must say: reason,knowledge, including that of true values, of pure ideals of everysort, including the ethical - all this is fiction. This is indeed,then, a bankruptcy of objective knowledge. Hume ends up, basically,in a solipsism. For how could inferences from data to other dataever reach beyond the immanent sphere? Of course, Hume did notask the question, or at least did not say a word, about the statusof the reason - Hume's - which established this theory as truth,which carried out these analyses of the soul and demonstratedthese laws of association. How do rules of associative ordering\"bind\"? Even if we knew about them, would not that knowledgeitself be another datum on the tablet?Like all scepticism, all irrationalism, the Humean sort cancelsitself out. Astounding as Hume's genius is, it is the more regrettablethat a correspondingly great philosophical ethos is not joinedwith it. This is evident in the fact that Hume takes care, throughouthis whole presentation, blandly to disguise or interpret as harmlesshis absurd results, though he does paint a picture (in the finalchapter of Volume I of the Treatise) of the immense embarrassmentin which the consistent theoretical philosopher gets involved.Instead of taking up the struggle against absurdity, instead ofunmasking those supposedly obvious views upon which this sensationalism,and psychologism in general, rests, in order to penetrate to acoherent self-understanding and a genuine theory of knowledge,he remains in the comfortable and very impressive role of academicscepticism. Through this attitude he has become the father ofa still effective, unhealthy positivism which hedges before philosophicalabysses, or covers them over on the surface, and comforts itselfwith the successes of the positive sciences and their psychologisticelucidation.§ 24. The genuine philosophical motif hidden in theabsurdity of Hume's scepticism: the shaking of objectivism.LET US STOP FOR A MOMENT. Why does Hume's Treatise (incomparison to which the Essay Concerning Human Understandingis badly watered down) represent such a great historical event?What happened there? The Cartesian radicalism of presuppositionlessness,with the goal of tracing genuine scientific knowledge back tothe ultimate sources of validity and of grounding it absolutelyupon them, required reflections directed toward the subject, requiredthe regression to the knowing ego in his immanence. No matterhow little one may have approved of Descartes's epistemologicalprocedure, one could no longer escape the necessity of this requirement.But was it possible to improve upon Descartes's procedure? Washis goal, that of grounding absolutely the new philosophical rationalism,still attainable after the sceptical attacks? Speaking in favourof this from the start was the immense force of discoveries inmathematics and natural science that were proceeding at breakneckspeed. And so all who themselves took part in these sciences throughresearch or study were already certain that its truth, its method,bore the stamp of finality and exemplariness. And now empiricistscepticism brings to light what was already present in the Cartesianfundamental investigation but was not worked out, namely, thatall knowledge of the world, the prescientific as well as the scientific,is an enormous enigma. It was easy to follow Descartes, when hewent back to the apodictic ego, in interpreting the latter assoul, in taking the primal self-evidence to be the self-evidenceof \"inner perception.\" And what was more plausible thanthe way in which Locke illustrated the reality of the detachedsoul and the history running its course within it, its internalgenesis, by means of the \"white paper\" and thus naturalisedthis reality? But now, could the \"idealism\" of Berkeleyand Hume, and finally scepticism with all its absurdity, be avoided?What a paradox! Nothing could cripple the peculiar force of therapidly growing and, in their own accomplishments, unassailableexact sciences or the belief in their truth. And yet, as soonas one took into account that they are the accomplishments ofthe consciousness of knowing subjects, their self-evidence andclarity were transformed into incomprehensible absurdity. No offencewas taken if, in Descartes, immanent sensibility engendered picturesof the world; but in Berkeley this sensibility engendered theworld of bodies itself; and in Hume the entire soul, with its\"impressions\" and \"ideas,\" the forces belongingto it, conceived of by analogy to physical forces, its laws ofassociation (as parallels to the law of gravity!), engenderedthe whole world, the world itself, not merely somethinglike a picture - though, to be sure, this product was merely afiction, a representation put together inwardly which was actually"
}
|
{
"content": "quite vague. And this is true of the world of the rational sciencesas well as that of experientia vaga.Was there not, here, in spite of the absurdity which may havebeen due to particular aspects of the presuppositions, a hiddenand unavoidable truth to be felt? Was this not the revelationof a completely new way of assessing the objectivity of the worldand its whole ontic meaning and, correlatively, that of the objectivesciences, a way which did not attack their own validity but didattack their philosophical or metaphysical claim, that of absolutetruth? Now at last it was possible and necessary to become awareof the fact - which had remained completely unconsidered in thesesciences - that the life of consciousness is a life of accomplishment:the accomplishment, right or wrong, of ontic meaning, even sensiblyintuited meaning, and all the more of scientific meaning. Descarteshad not pondered the fact that, just as the sensible world, thatof everyday life, is the cogitatum of sensing cogitationes,so the scientific world is the cogitatum of scientific cogitationes;and he had not noticed the circle in which he was involved whenhe presupposed, in his proof of the existence of God, the possibilityof inferences transcending the ego, when this possibility, afterall, was supposed to be established only through this proof. Thethought was quite remote from him that the whole world could itselfbe a cogitatum arising out of the universal synthesis of the variouslyflowing cogitationes and that, on a higher level, the rationalaccomplishment of the scientific cogitationes, built uponthe former ones, could be constitutive of the scientific world.But was this thought not suggested, now, by Berkeley and Hume- under the presupposition that the absurdity of their empiricismlay only in a belief that was supposedly obvious, throughwhich immanent reason had been driven out in advance? ThroughBerkeley's and Hume's revival and radicalisation of the Cartesianfundamental problem, \"dogmatic\" objectivism was, fromthe point of view of our critical presentation, shakento the foundations. This is true not only of the mathematisingobjectivism, so inspiring to people of the time, which actuallyascribed to the world itself a mathematical-rational in-itself(which we copy, so to speak, better and better in our more orless perfect theories); it was also true of the general objectivismwhich had been dominant for millennia.§ 25. The \"transcendental\" motif in rationalism:Kant's conception of a transcendental philosophy.AS IS KNOWN, Hume has a particular place in history also becauseof the turn he brought about in the development of Kant's thinking.Kant himself says, in the much-quoted words, that Hume rousedhim from his dogmatic slumbers and gave his investigations inthe field of speculative philosophy a different direction. Wasit, then, the historical mission of Kant to experience the shakingof objectivism, of which I just spoke, and to undertake in histranscendental philosophy the solution of the task before whichHume drew back? The answer must be negative. It is a new sortof transcendental subjectivism which begins with Kant and changesinto new forms in the systems of German idealism. Kant does notbelong to the development which expands in a continuous line fromDescartes through Locke, and he is not the successor of Hume.His interpretation of the Humean scepticism and the way in whichhe reacts against it are determined by his own provenance in theWolffian school. The \"revolution of the way of thinking\"motivated by Hume's impulse is not directed against empiricismbut against post-Cartesian rationalism's way of thinking, whosegreat consummator was Leibniz and which was given its systematictextbook-like presentation, its most effective and by far mostconvincing form, by Christian Wolff.First of all, what is the meaning of the \"dogmatism,\"taken quite generally, that Kant uproots? Although the Meditationscontinued to have their effect on post-Cartesian philosophy, thepassionate radicalism which drove them was not passed on to Descartes'ssuccessors. They were quite prepared to accept what Descartesonly wished to establish, and found so hard to establish, by inquiringback into the ultimate source of all knowledge: namely, the absolutemetaphysical validity of the objective sciences, or, taking thesetogether, of philosophy as the one objective universal science;or, what comes to the same thing, the right of the knowing egoto let its rational constructs, in virtue of the self-evidencesoccurring in its mens, count as nature with a meaning transcendingthis ego. The new conception of the world of bodies, self-enclosedas nature, and the natural sciences related to them, the correlativeconception of the self-enclosed souls and the task, related tothem, of a new psychology with a rational method according tothe mathematical model - all this had established itself. In everydirection rational philosophy was under construction; of primaryinterest were discoveries, theories, the rigour of their inferences,and correspondingly the general problem of method and its perfection.Thus knowledge was very much discussed, and from a scientificallygeneral point of view. This reflection on knowledge, however,was not transcendental reflection but rather a reflectionon the praxis of knowledge and was thus similar to thereflection carried out by one who works in any other practicalsphere of interest, the kind which is expressed in the generalpropositions of a technology. It is a matter of what weare accustomed to call logic, though in a traditional, very narrow,and limited sense. Thus we can say quite correctly (broadeningthe meaning): it is a matter of a logic as a theory of norms anda technology with the fullest universality, to the end of attaininga universal philosophy.The thematic direction was thus twofold: on the one hand, towarda systematic universe of \"logical laws,\" the theoreticaltotality of the truths destined to function as norms for all judgmentswhich shall be capable of being objectively true - and to thisbelongs, in addition to the old formal logic, also arithmetic,all of pure analytic mathematics, i.e., the mathesis universalisof Leibniz, and in general everything that is purely a priori.On the other hand, the thematic direction was toward general considerationsabout those who make judgments as those striving for objectivetruth: how they are to make normative use of those laws so thatthe self-evidence through which a judgment is certified as objectivelytrue can appear, and similarly about the ways and temptationsof failure, etc.Now clearly, in all the laws which are in the broader sense \"logical,\"beginning with the principle of non-contradiction, metaphysicaltruth was contained eo ipso. The systematically worked-outtheory of these laws had, of itself, the meaning of a general"
}
|
{
"content": "ontology. What happened here scientifically was the work of purereason operating exclusively with concepts innate in the knowingsoul. That these concepts, that logical laws, that pure rationallawfulness in general contained metaphysical-objective truth was\"obvious.\" Occasionally appeal was made to God as aguarantee, in remembrance of Descartes, with little concern forthe fact that it was rational metaphysics which first had to establishGod's existence.Over against the faculty of pure a priori thinking, thatof pure reason, stood that of sensibility, the faculty of outerand inner experience. The subject, affected in outer experiencefrom \"outside,\" thereby becomes certain of affectingobjects, but in order to know them in their truth he needs purereason, i.e., the system of norms in which reason displays itself,as the 'logic\" for all true knowledge of the objective world.Such is the typical rationalist conception.As for Kant, who had been influenced by empiricist psychology:Hume had made him sensitive to the fact that between the puretruths of reason and metaphysical objectivity there remained agulf of incomprehensibility, namely, as to how precisely thesetruths of reason could really guarantee the knowledge of things.Even the model rationality of the mathematical natural scienceswas transformed into an enigma. That it owed its rationality,which was in fact quite indubitable - that is, its method - tothe normative a priori of pure logico-mathematical reason,and that the latter, in its disciplines, exhibited an unassailablepure rationality, remained unquestioned. Natural science is, tobe sure, not purely rational insofar as it has need of outer experience,sensibility; but everything in it that is rational it owes topure reason and its setting of norms; only through them can therebe rationalised experience. As for sensibility, on the other hand,it had generally been assumed that it gives rise to the merelysensible data, precisely as a result of affection from the outside.And yet one acted as if the experiential world of the prescientificman - the world not yet logicised by mathematics - was the worldpre-given by mere sensibility.Hume had shown that we naively read causality into this worldand think that we grasp necessary succession in intuition. Thesame is true of everything that makes the body of the everydaysurrounding world into an identical thing with identical properties,relations, etc. ( and Hume had in fact worked this out in detailin the Treatise, which was unknown to Kant). Data and complexesof data come and go, but the thing, presumed to be simply experiencedsensibly, is not something sensible which persists through thisalteration. The sensationalist thus declares it to be a fiction.He is substituting, we shall say, mere sense-data for perception,which after all places things (everyday things) beforeour eyes. In other words, he overlooks the fact that mere sensibility,related to mere data of sense, cannot account for objects of experience.Thus he overlooks the fact that these objects of experience pointto a hidden mental accomplishment and to the problem of what kindof an accomplishment this can be. From the very start, after all,it must be a kind which enables the objects of prescientific experience,through logic, mathematics, mathematical natural science, to beknowable with objective validity, i.e., with a necessity whichcan be accepted by and is binding for everyone.But Kant says to himself: undoubtedly things appear, but onlybecause the sense-data, already brought together in certain ways,in concealment, through a priori forms, are made logicalin the course of their alteration - without any appeal to reasonas manifested in logic and mathematics, without its being broughtinto normative function. Now is this quasi-logical function somethingthat is psychologically accidental? If we think of it as absent,can a mathematics, a logic of nature, ever have the possibilityof knowing objects through mere sense-data?These are, if I am not mistaken, the inwardly guiding thoughtsof Kant. Kant now undertakes, in fact, to show, through a regressiveprocedure, that if common experience is really to be experienceof objects of nature, objects which can really be knowablewith objective truth, i.e., scientifically, in respect to theirbeing and non-being, their being-such and being-otherwise, thenthe intuitively appearing world must already be a construct ofthe faculties of \"pure intuition\" and \"pure reason,\"the same faculties that express themselves in explicit thinkingin mathematics and logic.In other words, reason has a twofold way of functioningand showing itself. One way is its systematic self-exposition,self-revelation in free and pure mathematising, in the practiceof the pure mathematical sciences. Here it presupposes the formingcharacter of \"pure intuition,\" which belongs to sensibilityitself. The objective result of both faculties is pure mathematicsas theory. The other way is that of reason constantly functioningin concealment, reason ceaselessly rationalising sense-data andalways having them as already rationalised. Its objective resultis the sensibly intuited world of objects - the empirical presuppositionof all natural-scientific thinking, i.e., the thinking which,through manifest mathematical reason, consciously gives normsto the experience of the surrounding world. Like the intuitedworld of bodies, the whole world of natural science ( and withit the dualistic world which can be known scientifically ) isa subjective construct of our intellect, only the material ofthe sense-data arises from a transcendent affection by \"thingsin themselves.\" The latter are in principle inaccessibleto objective scientific knowledge. For according to this theory,man's science, as an accomplishment bound by the interplay ofthe subjective faculties \"sensibility\" and \"reason\"(or, as Kant says here, \"understanding\"), cannot explainthe origin, the \"cause,\" of the factual manifolds ofsense-data. The ultimate presuppositions of the possibility andactuality of objective knowledge cannot be objectively knowable.Whereas natural science had pretended to be a branch of philosophy,the ultimate science of what is, and had believed itself capableof knowing, through its rationality, what is in itself, beyondthe subjectivity of the factualities of knowledge, for Kant, now,objective science, as an accomplishment remaining withinsubjectivity, is separated off from his philosophical theory.The latter, as a theory of the accomplishments necessarily carriedout within subjectivity, and thus as a theory of the possibilityand scope of objective knowledge, reveals the naivete of the supposedrational philosophy of nature-in-itself.We know how this critique is for Kant nevertheless the beginningof a philosophy in the old sense, for the universe of being, thusextending even to the rationally unknowable in-itself - how, under the titles \"critique of practical reason\"and \"critique of judgment,\" he not only limits philosophicalclaims but also believes he is capable of opening ways towardthe \"scientifically\" unknowable in-itself. Here we shall"
}
|
{
"content": "not go into this. What interests us now is - speaking in formalgenerality - that Kant, reacting against the data-positivism ofHume ( as he understands it) outlines a great, systematicallyconstructed, and in a new way still scientific philosophyin which the Cartesian turn to conscious subjectivity works itselfout in the form of a transcendental subjectivism.Irrespective of the truth of the Kantian philosophy, about whichwe need not pass judgment here, we must not pass over the factthat Hume, as he is understood by Kant, is not the real Hume.Kant speaks of the \"Humean problem.\" What is the actualproblem, the one which drives Hume himself? We find itwhen we transform Hume's sceptical theory, his total claim, backinto his problem, extending it to those consequences whichdo not quite find their complete expression in the theory - althoughit is difficult to suppose that a genius with a spirit like Hume'sdid not see these consequences, which are not expressly drawnand not theoretically treated. If we proceed in this way, we findnothing less than this universal problem:How is the naive obviousness of the certainty of the world,the certainty in which we live - and, what is more, the certaintyof the everyday world as well as that of the sophisticated theoreticalconstructions built upon this everyday world - to be made comprehensible?What is, in respect to sense and validity, the \"objectiveworld,\" objectively true being, and also the objective truthof science, once we have seen universally with Hume (and in respectto nature even with Berkeley) that \"world\" is a validitywhich has sprung up within subjectivity, indeed - speaking frommy point of view, who am now philosophising - one which has sprungup within my subjectivity, with all the content it ever countsas having for me?The naivete of speaking about \"objectivity\" withoutever considering subjectivity as experiencing, knowing, and actuallyconcretely accomplishing, the naivete of the scientistof nature or of the world in general, who is blind to the factthat all the truths he attains as objective truths and the objectiveworld itself as the substratum of his formulae (the everyday worldof experience as well as the higher-level conceptual world ofknowledge) are his own life-construct developed withinhimself - this naivete is naturally no longer possible as soonas life becomes the point of focus. And must this liberationnot come to anyone who seriously immerses himself in the Treatiseand, after unmasking Hume's naturalistic presuppositions, becomesconscious of the power of his motivation?But how is this most radical subjectivism, which subjectivisesthe world itself, comprehensible? The world-enigma in the deepestand most ultimate sense, the enigma of a world whose being isbeing through subjective accomplishment, and this with the self-evidencethat another world cannot be at all conceivable - that, and nothingelse, is Hume's problem.Kant, however, for whom, as can easily be seen, so many presuppositionsare \"obviously\" valid, presuppositions which in theHumean sense are included within this world-enigma, never penetratedto the enigma itself. For his set of problems stands on the groundof the rationalism extending from Descartes through Leibniz toWolff.In this way, through the problem of rational natural science whichprimarily guides and determines Kant's thinking, we seek to makeunderstandable Kant's position, so difficult to interpret, inrelation to his historical setting. What particularly interestsus now - speaking first in formal generality - is the fact thatin reaction to the Humean data-positivism, which in his fictionalismgives up philosophy as a science, a great and systematically constructedscientific philosophy appears for the first time since Descartes- a philosophy which must be called transcendental subjectivism.§ 26. Preliminary discussion of the concept of the\"transcendental\" which guides us here.I SHOULD LIKE TO NOTE the following right away: the expression\"transcendental philosophy\" has been much used sinceKant, even as a general title for universal philosophies whoseconcepts are oriented toward those of the Kantian type. I myselfuse the word \"transcendental\" in the broadest sensefor the original motif, discussed in detail above, which throughDescartes confers meaning upon all modern philosophies, the motifwhich, in all of them, seeks to come to itself, so to speak -seeks to attain the genuine and pure form of its task and itssystematic development. It is the motif of inquiring back intothe ultimate source of all the formations of knowledge, the motifof the knower's reflecting upon himself and his knowing life inwhich all the scientific structures that are valid for him occurpurposefully, are stored up as acquisitions, and have become andcontinue to become freely available. Working itself out radically,it is the motif of a universal philosophy which is grounded purelyin this source and thus ultimately grounded. This source bearsthe title I-myself, with all of my actual and possibleknowing life and, ultimately, my concrete life in general. Thewhole transcendental set of problems circles around the relationof this, my \"I\" - the \"ego\" - to whatit is at first taken for granted to be - my soul - and, again,around the relation of this ego and my conscious life to the worldof which I am conscious and whose true being I know through myown cognitive structures.Of course this most general concept of the \"transcendental\"cannot be supported by documents; it is not to be gained throughthe internal exposition and comparison of the individual systems.Rather, it is a concept acquired by pondering the coherent historyof the entire philosophical modern period: the concept of itstask which is demonstrable only in this way, lying within it asthe driving force of its development, striving forward from vaguedynamis towards its energeia.This is only a preliminary indication, which has already beenprepared to a certain extent by our historical analysis up tothis point; our subsequent presentations are to establish thejustification for our kind of \"teleological\" approachto history and its methodical function for the definitive constructionof a transcendental philosophy which satisfies its most propermeaning. This preliminary indication of a radical transcendentalsubjectivism will naturally seem strange and arouse scepticism.I welcome this, if this scepticism bespeaks, not the prior resolveof rejection, but rather a free withholding of any judgment.§ 27. The philosophy of Kant and his followers seenfrom the perspective of our guiding concept of the \"transcendental.\"The task of taking a critical position.RETURNING AGAIN TO KANT: his system can certainly be characterised,in the general sense defined, as one of \"transcendental philosophy,\"although it is far from accomplishing a truly radical grounding"
}
|
{
"content": "of philosophy, the totality of all sciences. Kant never permittedhimself to enter the vast depths of the Cartesian fundamentalinvestigation, and his own set of problems never caused him toseek in these depths for ultimate groundings and decisions. ShouldI, in the following presentations, succeed - as I hope - in awakeningthe insight that a transcendental philosophy is the more genuine,and better fulfils its vocation as philosophy, the more radicalit is and, finally, that it comes to its actual and true existence,to its actual and true beginning, only when the philosopher haspenetrated to a clear understanding of himself as the subjectivityfunctioning as primal source, we should still have to recognise,on the other hand, that Kant's philosophy is on the wayto this, that it is in accord with the formal, general sense ofa transcendental philosophy in our definition. It is a philosophywhich, in opposition to prescientific and scientific objectivism,goes back to knowing subjectivity as the primal locus of all objectiveformations of sense and ontic validities, undertakes to understandthe existing world as a structure of sense and validity, and inthis way seeks to set in motion an essentially new type of scientificattitude and a new type of philosophy. In fact, if we do not countthe negativistic, sceptical philosophy of a Hume, the Kantiansystem is the first attempt, and one carried out with impressivescientific seriousness, at a truly universal transcendental philosophymeant to be a rigorous science in a sense of scientificrigour which has only now been discovered and which is the onlygenuine sense.Something similar holds, we can say in advance, for the greatcontinuations and revisions of Kantian transcendentalism in thegreat systems of German Idealism. They all share the basic convictionthat the objective sciences (no matter how much they, and particularlythe exact sciences, may consider themselves, in virtue of theirobvious theoretical and practical accomplishments, to be in possessionof the only true method and to be treasure houses of ultimatetruths) are not seriously sciences at all, not cognitions ultimatelygrounded, i.e., not ultimately, theoretically responsible forthemselves - and that they are not, then, cognitions of what existsin ultimate truth. This can be accomplished according to GermanIdealism only by a transcendental-subjective method and, carriedthrough as a system, transcendental philosophy. As was alreadythe case with Kant, the opinion is not that the self-evidenceof the positive-scientific method is an illusion and its accomplishmentan illusory accomplishment but rather that this self-evidenceis itself a problem; that the objective-scientific method restsupon a never questioned, deeply concealed subjective ground whosephilosophical elucidation will for the first time reveal the truemeaning of the accomplishments of positive science and, correlatively,the true ontic meaning of the objective world - precisely asa transcendental-subjective meaning.Now in order to be able to understand the position of Kant andof the systems of transcendental idealism proceeding from him,within modern philosophy's teleological unity of meaning, andthus to make progress in our own self-understanding, it is necessaryto critically get closer to the style of Kant's scientific attitudeand to clarify the lack of radicalism we are attacking in hisphilosophising. It is with good reason that we pause over Kant,a significant turning point in modern history. The critique tobe directed against him will reflect back and elucidate all earlierphilosophical history, namely, in respect to the general meaningof scientific discipline which all earlier philosophies stroveto realize - as the only meaning which lay and could possiblylie within their spiritual horizon. Precisely in this way a moreprofound concept - the most important of all - of \"objectivism\"will come to the fore (more important than the one we were ableto define earlier), and with it the genuinely radical meaningof the opposition between objectivism and transcendentalism.Yet, over and above this, the more concrete critical analysesof the conceptual structures of the Kantian turn, and the contrastbetween it and the Cartesian turn, will set in motion our ownconcurrent thinking in such a way as to place us, gradually andof its own accord, before the final turn and the finaldecisions. We ourselves shall be drawn into an inner transformationthrough which we shall come face to face with, to direct experienceof, the long-felt but constantly concealed dimension of the \"transcendental.\"The ground of experience, opened up in its infinity, will thenbecome the fertile soil of a methodical working philosophy, withthe self-evidence, furthermore, that all conceivable philosophicaland scientific problems of the past are to be posed and decidedby starting from this ground.Further Reading:Biography |Vygotsky |Existentialism |from Part III |Locke |Dilthey |Brentano |Hilbert |Heidegger |Schlick |CarnapPhilosophy Archive @ marxists.org"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Election of Delegates to theGerman Metal Workers’ Conference(30 August 1923)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 58 [36], 30 August 1923, pp. 630–631.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2022). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.Up to the time of writing, the following results have been published of. the elections of the Metal Workers’ Union which took place on July 22 and 23, 239 delegates have been elected so far. Of these 116 belong to the opposition and 123 to the reformists. As the Union Conference will consist of a total of 400 delegates, this result is still only partial. But even this partial result already shows two things. Firstly, that the workers are beginning to take an ever growing interest in the conferences of their organizations. Never before has there been such extensive participation in the elections, either in the history of the metal workers’ organization or in that of the other trade union organizations of Germany. Almost everywhere there has been a 50% participation in the elections, and in many cases, even more than 50% of the members took part. At former elections to the Metal Workers’ Conference and to other trade union congresses only very small numbers of members could be induced to approach the ballot box. It was no rarity for only 5 to 10 per cent of the members to take part in the elections. At the election to the Trade Union Congress in the year 1919, a considerable number of the delegates were elected by the votes of onlv 2% and less of the members. The enormous participation of this year is due to the tremendous work of enlightenment which the communist fractious have performed of recent years. The German worker has thus been given a greater interest in the life of his organization, and even the Amsterdamers have found it necessary to occupy themselves somewhat energetically with the mobilization of the trade union members, in order to maintain their position. This rousing of the masses of members is regarded with extreme disfavor by the reformist trade union leaders. The workers now taking part in the active life of the meetings, and casting their votes against the reformist policy, are designated by the Amsterdamers as cranks, grumblers, fools, chatterboxes, etc. The reformists do not observe that they are lowering the whole trade union movement in the eves of the public by such railing against their members. And there is no doubt that the reformists would be delighted to witness this mass participation of the trade union members in the meetings, etc., if these masses would give unanimous assent to reformist methods. But in this respect the reformists have become unassuming. The fewer the members taking part in trade union activities, the better they are pleased. Indeed, a leading German trade union organ informed its readers, in the spring of this year, that the extremely poor attendance at the trade union meetings convened by the reform st officialdom was “no sign of mistrust of reformism on the part of the members, but a manifestation of confidence. The absent members show by their absence that they possess full confidence in the reformist leaders.”Secondly, the results of the elections to the Metal Workers’ Union Conference show an enormous increase in the opposition votes, cast for the communist lists. Although the reformists have not everywhere met with such annihilating defeat as in Berlin (here the opposition list received 54,000 votes, while the reformists, though controlling the whole union apparatus, only managed to obtain 22,000) and in Westphalia, the advance made by the opposition is none the less so mighty that every reformist must give it his serious consideration."
}
|
{
"content": "Even though the number of opposition mandates will probably fall short of half the total of 400 mandates composing the Union Conference, it is even now almost certain that the majority of all the votes cast will fall to the opposition. In any case this is very largely true of the results already reported. How can we explain this? The ruling union officialdom has contrived to introduce a geometry of electorates and such methods of arranging the candidates, that the bosses of the union gain the majorities, even when the overwhelming majority of their members’ votes is registered against them. The candidates are generally nominated at delegate meetings; these delegates have the right to set up two lists, a majority and a minority list. The minority list must unite at least 10% of the votes of the delegates present at the meeting. On the face of it, this seems an extremely democratic arrangement, but as soon as we observe the constitution of the delegate meetings, we see that it is a most ingenious artifice for killing off the opposition from the very beginning. Let us take an example in the administrative headquarters at Dortmund, in Westphalia. The delegate meeting was elected in the spring of 1923 by a number of district meetings, as a matter of fact after a list election. (The Executive of the German Metal Workers’ Union has rejected proportional representation on principle.) At this election it turned out that the communists united in their lists 40% of the votes cast everywhere, but nowhere 50%. The whole of the mandates to the delegate meeting therefore fell to the social democrats. Thus when the candidates were being nominated at the delegate meeting, no communist list could be submitted. The result was that the four delegates to be elected for Dortmund were nominated and elected by the United Social Democratic Party of Germany only, while a communist list, had one existed, would have received the overwhelming majority of votes, as was the case in the other Rhenish-Westphalian towns. Another example of electorate geometry. The Union constitution enacts that there shall be one delegate to every 4,000 members. Several administrative head quarters can be amalgamated to form one electoral district. In order to ensure a favorable result for the reformists, the administrations of Altenburg with 3,223 members, Jena with 3,225, and Schmalkaden with 3,533, were combined in Thuringia into one electoral district entitled to 3 delegates. The reformists speculated on the fact that Altenburg is a stronghold oi reformism, and was likely to yield such a surplus of rrformist votes that the victory over Jena and Schmalkaden would be assured, whereas, had each administration elected its own delegate, Jena and Schmalkaden would have fallen to the opposition And a third example will show how still other means may be employed to manufacture favorable results for reformism. In Pforzheim 6 delegates have to be elected. The reformist local administration called the meeting at which the candidates were to be nominated, but not till the day before, and without stating the business of the meeting. (This is against the constitution, but the constitution is only valid for the reformists when it can be used against the communists.) The reformists set the whole of their official machinery to work before this meeting, settled the candidates, and took the members completely by surprise by suddenly placing the nomination of candidates to the Union Conference on the agenda. This manoeuvre enabled them to prevent an opposition list from being submitted.But however cunning the artifices with which reformism strives to save its position, in the German Metal Workers’ Union as everywhere else, the election results show that these methods will not work for ever, and that these artifices, this ignoring of all democracy in the organization, will end in such tremendous defeats as that of Berlin. The reformists feel that their position is threatened, and therefore they are doing their utmost to hide their defeat, or to cover it by savage agitation against the opposition. They declare quite openly that they would not submit to an opposition majority, and are adopting means for stemming the advance of the opposition. They refuse to grasp the fact that the results of the elections are a condemnation of their polity, and continue their efforts to suppress the opinions of others – even at the risk of destroying the organization – by setting up a ruthless bureaucratic dictatorship. To those who have eyes to see, the results, of the elections in the metal workers’ organization show that no artifice and no dictatorship on the part of reformist trade union officialdom can hinder the advance and the victory of the revolutionary idea.Top of the pageLast updated on 28 April 2023"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Labor MovementThe German Trade Unionsfrom Nürnberg to Leipzig(1 September 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 75, 1 September 1922, pp. 561–563.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2020). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.I. From Nürnberg to HalleIf we stop to survey the period of the German trade union movement between the two trade-union congresses at Nürnberg in 1919 and at Leipzig in 1922. we note a development that is of great importance to the trade union movement throughout the world.In the early summer of 1919, the German Revolution had again shaken both the whole state organism and the economic structure of the country. Large sections of German labor were of the opinion that by immediate direct action they could shift both the economic and political balance of power. And especially the battles carried on under the direct supervision of the shop stewards, without the workers referring the matter to the union officials, gave rise to the opinion that the tendencies working for revolutionary activity of the German trade unions (instead of the reformist attitude) would soon gain the upper hand. The social-patriotic, reformist attitude of the trade union officialdom and the complete abandonment of the principles of class struggle during the war and the first months of the revolution, had combined to create a sharp, rapidly growing opposition. Nearly two fifths of all delegates to the Nürnberg trade-union congress were radical elements believing that they had the backing of the majority of organized labor and that only by employing devious tricks could the bureaucracy secure for itself a nominal majority.The central problem, labor industrial truce or class struggle, was already more or less clearly formulated, in Nürnberg. Many workers had been sorely disappointed by the truce policy during the war, and by its peace edition, – the policy of collaboration. They were determined that labor’s organized forces, the trade-unions, be employed for creating guarantees safeguarding labor against any renewal of the economic and political dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The trade-unions had assumed formidable proportions; they comprised then 5,400,000 workers, and were adding tens of thousands every week to their membership.This rapidly growing mass of organized workers brought two tendencies into the trade union movement. First, that of making the shop steward committees into militant organs of the workers, and secondly, that of reshaping, the craft unions into industrial unions, which were considered better weapons in the tremendous economic struggles. Even if the revolutionary wing of the trade union movement did not carry the day at the Nürnberg Congress, there was reason to hope that the final victory would only be a matter of months. The majority of the 191 opposition delegates belonged politically to the Independent Social Democratic Party (USP); only 7 were members of the Communist Party. The USP was at that time developing towards the left, a strong mass party counting its adherents chiefly among the industrial proletariat.The following year witnessed the increase of the total trade union membership to 7,890,000. But the revolutionary spirit did not keep pace with this growth. And although the general trade union opposition gained another victory at the metal workers’ congress (in the summer of that year, when the oppostion led by the USP. gained the majority and thus the union) there was no gainsaying the fact that the reactionary attitude of the trade-union bureaucracy was not effected by the penetration into it of the opposition. Rather the opposite took place. A part of the metal workers’ opposition, which under the slogan, Against Collaboration and for the Class Struggle had carried on the fight for the union, fell down on its slogan and at the shop-stewards’ congress, in October, we saw the Independent metal workers’ leader, Dissmann, fight the resolute opposition side by side with that hardened reformist, Legien. Prior to that congress, the whole opposition had considered the shop steward committees as independent factors and cooperators in the economic struggles of the workers, but the congress itself sealed the fate of the Committees and subordinated them to the trade union bureaucracy as its auxiliary organs. The split within the opposition and the march of the opposition bureaucracy towards the Right and into the Legien camp, coincided with the split of the USP and the fusion of its left wing with the Communist Party. II. The Victory of the Trade Union Bureaucracy. Its AchievementsThe split of the opposition resulted for the time being, in a strengthening of the reformist ADGB. (General German Trade Union Federation) bureaucracy, and in a weakening of the revolutionary struggle in the trade unions. The opposition had to regain its bearings and to reconsider its aims and tasks; it recognized the urgency of close unity everywhere, and fully grasped the fact that a long-drawn and embittered struggle for the sympathies of the membership would have to precede any attempt at compelling the reformist bureaucracy to retire from their position. The opposition nuclei forming everywhere in the trade unions soon became the target of the trade union leaders, who launched a savage campaign against the opposition groups, the chief weapon being the expulsion of the opposition leaders from the trade unions. The reformist bureaucracy fully believed that by this policy of persecution and expulsion they could stamp out the opposition and thus render their own position impregnable. Brutal measures were employed especially by the officials of the builders’, railwaymen’s and agricultural workers’ unions. The latter did not even desist from disrupting the organization in large districts, as long as the opposition was crushed thereby."
}
|
{
"content": "The situation which the trade-union bureaucracy was landed into by its policy of collaboration, compels it to fight the opposition. No matter what it does or thinks, its foremost aim is to avoid serious conflicts with the bourgeoisie. Out of such considerations it accepted the terms of the Versailles Treaty and pledged itself to exert all its energy for their fulfilment. And just as it submitted to the bourgeoisie in matters of foreign policy, it abandoned at home all the demands of the workers, whenever it became apparent that the bourgeoisie was seriously determined to fight.Germany’s economic collapse and the subsequent political convulsions, often gave the bureaucracy opportunity to parade as labor’s leader. The first of these was the Kapp-Putsch. When the working class had crushed the rebellious military camarilla, ana was getting ready to grasp the fruits of victory, the ADGB concluded with the government and the counter-revolution the widely known Bielefeld Agreement, pledging itself to use all its forces to break off the victorious struggle of labor. The latter was told that the ADGB guaranteed the fulfillment of the 8 points of the agreement which would provide a real protection for the workers. After the workers were once disarmed, however, the ADGB never dreamt of redeeming its promises to labor.The same tactics were employed by the ADGB in the struggle carried on by the unemployed to secure their existence in spring 1921. In order to prevent a serious movement, the ADGB formulated ten demands, not one of which was ever complied with. In the autumn of the same year, the mark had sunk to such depths as to endanger seriously the standard of living of the German worker. Again the ADGB entered the political arena with a new series of ten demands coupled with the declaration that unless these demands were complied with, both labor and the economic household would be ruined completely. The first of these demands was the confiscation of 25 per cent of all gold values. The working class, which put its trust into the ADGB, was again sorely disappointed, for nothing whatever was done to enforce those demands.But the policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie, which the ADGB refused to abandon, and which had compelled it to sabotage the Bielefeld Agreement, the unemployment demands and the demand for the confiscation of 25 per cent of all gold values, was also at the bottom of its cynical betrayal of the railway officials in the Spring of 1922, and its union with all those who openly advocated the use of armed force against the railwaymen whom unbearable economic pressure had forced to strike. The betrayal of the struggling workers was so base and so enraged the workers, that their spirit of solidarity urged them to side with the strikers and they rebelled against the ADGB.The ADGB’s policy of cooperation roused great indignation in the ranks of organized labor. This indignation is unfortunately being expressed by the workers turning their backs on trade unions. The number of organized workers has decreased considerably, during 1921, and the tendency to leave the trade unions is still prevalent. The reason for this, as advanced by the ADGB, was that hundreds of thousands of newly organized members being slow to grasp the advantages of trade unions, had left dissatisfied, while others had been repelled by the inciting activities of the Communists. A third reason given for the decrease is the bad economic situation.To all of which we have the following reply. Firstly unemployment is practically negligible in Germany today; there is even less of it than before the war; such periods have always been noted as favorable for organization. Secondly, wherever and whenever Communist work was successful in the trade unions, there was the least decrease of membership to be noted. Thirdly, the decrease of membership is proportionate to the increase of the aggressiveness of the bourgeoisie, the partner of the trade union bureaucracy. This is made quite clear by the market decrease after the assassination of Rathenau, when the trade union bureaucracy, by steering into shallow waters the struggle against the reaction, which the workers had taken up with so much energy, became a party to the resurrection of reaction.In all other economic and social questions, the reformist trade union leaders have also failed miserably. In order to preserve cooperation, they yielded to the employers in the matter of the workers’ rights and social institutions, and were even in part ready to sacrifice the eight-hour day. The shop steward committees have been shorn of their power to a greater extent than even the employers had intended to. III. The Leipzig Trade Union Congress and Our ProspectsAt the trade union congress in Leipzig, the ADGB had to account for its policy, and German organized labor has drawn the conclusions. Wherever the opposition secured a footing it routed the reformist collaborators. Even if only 90 of the 700 delegates at the congress belonged to the Communist opposition, there can be no doubt that these 90 had the backing of 35 to 40 per cent of German organized labor. Only by various manipulations did the bureaucracy succeed in securing a big majority. But although the opposition at Nürnberg had reason to hope that victory would be theirs, and the old bureaucracy had to prepare for the worst, the latter was nevertheless better able to defend itself and to maintain its position in Nürnberg than in Leipzig, where the managing committee of the ADGB, in spite of its SPD majority, was defeated on all points. Only in mere routine matters could the bureaucracy count on the support of the majority; in the voting on the questions of collaboration, industrial unions, and other important matters, the majority was either against the ADGB or it was so composed as to render the continuation of the old policy impossible.During the last three years, Germany’s economic situation has been growing from bad to worse, and even the most backward workers are beginning to understand that collaboration, leads to abject misery, and that other ways and means must be found to safeguard labor’s existence."
}
|
{
"content": "Prompted by these and similar considerations, the organized workers are massing on the left, confiding more and more in the Communist leaders and refusing to tolerate any longer the persecution of Communists.The ADGB has learned nothing whatever since Nürnberg. In the days of labor’s direst privation it was still aiding the bourgeoisie, and no outbursts of indignation on the part of the membership could move it to abandon that policy. Having sacrificed its demands after the Rathenau murder, it now steps forth and declares boldly; our principal task is to oppose the Communists. This, in a period of capitalist aggression, at a time when the sudden rise of prices, when reaction rears its head once more! The next few months will convince the ADGB that the workers have other matters to look after: to organize themselves against the bourgeoisie and all those in league with it. The campaign against the Communist opposition will end with the defeat of the trade union bureaucracy. That is the balance of Leipzig!Top of the pageLast updated on 9 August 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Class StruggleThe General Strike in Germany,its Development, its Effect and its Lessons(6 September 1923)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 59 [37], 6 September 1923, pp. 649–651.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2023). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.On the anniversary of the founding of the German Republic, 12,000 shop stewards representing the workers of Greater Berlin assembled m Berlin, and resolved to enter upon a general strike, and to call upon the workers in town and country to participate in it. The strike was called for three days; its demands included political and economic aims. Now the strike has terminated without all the demands having been realized, the bourgeoisie and social democracy haste to exclaim; “The general strike action has completely collapsed, the workers have been lured to rum by the communists, but the collapse of the general strike has at least had the beneficial effect that the Communist Party is completely done for and the workers have been cured of all ideas of communist putsches.” At the same moment, when all bourgeois and social democratic newspapers are writing in this fashion, the minister of police. Severing, issues a Ukase declaring the National Committee of the Factory Councils and all its subcommittees to be dissolved. Words and deeds are here completely at variance. If the workers have completely rejected communism, if the Communist Party is absolutely dead – then whence the necessity of an exceptional law against a committee of shop stewards which has entirely lost all influence owing to the outcome of the movement? The bourgeois papers and the social democrats are forced into such contradictions. They must keep up their own courage and that of their readers.If we desire to form a correct estimate of the last general strike, we must accord it a somewhat more thorough attention than the social democratic and bourgeois newspapers care to give it.The Vossische Zeitung writes: “The communists enjoyed an incredible boom last week (before the general strike), but they have lost the entire game by their foolishness. If they had waited, the ripe fruit would have fallen into their mouths. They have lost everything by their stupid general strike.” The social democratic Vorwärts expounds at great length that such a general strike was destined to fall from the beginning, as the trade union leaders had not organized and led it. No general strike has any prospect of success miles properly prepared, and less its demands have been thoroughly examined as to their expediency by the competent authorities. We need not be offended when the Vossische Zeitung and all the other press duennas write such foolish nonsense about the labor movement. But we have a right to expect more from a social democratic paper.As early as 1900, when the problem of the mass strike was pushed into the foreground by the first Russian revolution, our murdered comrade, Rosa Luxemburg, overwhelmed the trade union leaders and party bureaucrats with biting irony and ridicule, because they condemned the mass strike as not fitting into their famous strike formula. She showed that the mass strike is based on other conditions and other laws than the ordinary wages strikes, and that a mass strike, when formulating its aims, will not hold to conditions devised in the conference rooms of trade union bureaucrats.Mass strikes do not fall from the sky. They have to be made by the workers. But before the working masses grasp the intuitive for a mass strike movement, a number of prerequisites are necessary. Were these prerequisites given in this last strike movement? To this question we can reply in the affirmative. The working class of Germany is living under the most wretched conditions imaginable. The bankrupt bourgeoisie plunges the working class into daily increasing misery and poverty. This unbearable misery forces the workers into continuous economic struggles. But the results of these economic struggles are always annulled again by the policy of tire ruling class, The Cuno government was a government which had proved itself entirely incapable of saving German economics, and with them the German working class, from falling over the precipice. The workers knew from experience that so long as this government held the reins there was no hope of emerging from their misery. But experience has also taught them something else in the course of the last few months, i.e., that the social democratic party and the trade union leaders have been tolerating or even supporting this bankrupt bourgeois policy. Thus the working class not only lost its confidence in Cuno’s government, but became very distrustful of the trade union leaders. During the last few weeks the workers have entered into a number of strikes. The net result of these strikes has been that wages had a lower purchasing power at the end of the strike period than at the beginning, that the government ruthlessly employed its forces for the suppression of all strikes, and that the social democratic bureaucracy sabotaged or even combatted the strikes. The working class, owing to these experiences. felt itself thrown on its own resources."
}
|
{
"content": "When the Cuno government was compelled to convene parliament in order to create for itself a basis for its further rule, the workers in all cities and villages of Germany felt: This government cannot be tolerated any longer. It must go! A workers’ deputation expressed this feeling of the masses by the sentence: “It is no longer possible to pace any confidence in this government. If another government comes, there is at least a hope that it will be better than Cuno’s government.” There was no need for the workers to hold any great consultations before formulating their demands: Wages with a constant value – but first of all the overthrow of Cuno’s government. Resolutions and motions to this effect were passed at thousands of meetings. When the Reichstag met, hundreds of workers’ deputations came and demanded of the leading organizations that they should fight energetically for the aims formulated by the masses. But social democracy, and the General German Trade Unions Federation, would not for a moment entertain the idea of a joint struggle of the workers for the realization of the workers’ demands. By Friday, August 10, the head organizations had still not decided to accede to the will of the masses. The proposal made by the Communists, that the General German Trade Union Federation should place itself at the head of the now unpreventable mass movement, and should fight with the masses for the realization of their demands, was scornfully rejected. On Saturday August 11, at 1 o’clock p.m., there was still a three-quarters majority in the social democratic Reichstag fraction for the retention of the Cuno government. The higher bureaucracy still believed that it was possible to hold the workers back from lighting. But when a “wild” plenary factory council meeting, attended by 12,000 shop stewards, resolved on the general strike; when the tramway workers ceased work and the electrical workers at Golpa turned off the current, then the social democrats saw that they could no longer maintain the Cuno government. The mass storm broke the resistance of the social democratic leaders, and swept away Cuno’s government. The bourgeoisie found itself obliged to make great material concessions to the workers in many places. Thus the mass strike brought about the realization of many of the demands made, even before its effects were fully felt.And how was its leadership, its organizatory and technical executive? On Friday, August 10, the trade unions declined to put themselves at the head of the inevitable movement. And yet it was perfectly plain to the trade union bureaucrats that their standing aside could not stem the movement. Their sole consolation was that neither had the communists sufficient power to lead the movement and bring it to a good end. We were told: “The masses are already beyond your control. By next Wednesday the whole movement will be a heap of debris, and we trade union leaders will once more be called upon to help the workers out of the unhappy situation into when you communists have led them.”The plenary factory council meeting had therefore no choice but itself to form a central strike leadership for the purpose of securing the united and uniform advance of the movement. Trade union bureaucracy and social democracy immediately called upon the workers to ignore the instructions issued by the strike central, and to remain at work. Despite this, the strike leaders were able to keep perfected control of the lighting masses. All provocat ons on the part of the bourgeoisie, the police, and the trade union and social democratic bureaucracy, were successfully warded off.In order to undermine the general strike, and to disunite the fighting masses, every available means were employed by the government, the bourgeoisie, and the social democrats, the committees of the national trade union of railwaymen, and of the German railwaymen’s union, declared to the ministers Stresemann and Hilferding that the minister for traffic for the whole German Republic, the notorious General Gröner, must not be permitted to enter the cabinet, or they would not be able to hold the workers back from striking. Under this pressure the new ministers made this concession, followed by further concessions with respect to higher wages. The workers on the overhead railways and tramways were granted large additions to their wages for coping with the rising prices, in order to induce them to desert the ranks. This manoeuvre met with considerable success. The printers, who were also on strike were granted enormous payments per hour; by this they were bought off and the bourgeoisie and the government were enabled to publish their press and poison public opinion. In this strike the electricians did not prove so powerful a factor as has been the case in former movements. This is due to the fact that a number of large power stations connected their systems with one another, while there was no unified down tools policy in this whole network of electric works, for coordination among the electrical workers was extremely deficient. These were circumstances very prejudicial to the strike. To this must be added that the provincial districts were insufficiently prepared for participation in a general strike. The appeal issued by the Berlin factory councils did not reach the ears of the workers throughout Germany until Monday, so that the provinces could not join the movement until Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. This deprived the strike movement of the impetus of a simultaneous beginning And a third factor calculated to interfere with the coherence and progress of the movement was the fact that the main political demand – overthrow of Cuno’s government had already been realized on Saturday evening, 36 hours before the provinces received the summons to take part in the general strike."
}
|
{
"content": "The strike leaders devoted every attention to all these difficulties and defects iu the movement. At a fresh plenary factory council meeting, attended by 13,000 shop stewards, they advised that the strike be broken off on Tuesday evening, the term fixed from the beginning of the strike. In making this proposition, the strike leaders felt that the growing united front of the workers must not be destroyed; that it would be unwise to let one section of the workers continue in the struggle whilst others had returned to work. The strike leaders were anxious to avoid the possibility of the section of the proletariat which had resumed work being played off against the section which continued the fight. Fresh schisms among the workers were to be prevented by every possible means. Trade union bureaucracy and social democracy should be given no opportunity of keeping up their pretence of being the saviours of the proletariat. It was important to gain time, to gather force, to prepare for future struggles, to enlighten those workers who took no part in the strike, to fill up the gaps in the united front, and to learn the real lessons taught by the errors and shortcomings of the movement.The 13,000 shop stewards assembled, showed complete understanding of the position of the strike leaders. With hearts filled with anger at the despicable behaviour of the leaders of the trade union organizations, and at the fresh treacheries of the social democratic leaders, the shop stewards decided that the fight be discontinued all round. Very few votes were cast against this proposition of the strike central. The meeting listened in perfect silence to the many speeches on the deficiencies in the movement, and the resolve matured in every heart to carry on the work with the utmost energy, to utilize the lessons taught by the movement in the interests of the proletariat, and thus to step forward into fresh battles with greater unity and strength than ever before. The leaders of a great struggle have never before received such a mighty and unanimous vote of confidence as that accorded to the improvised strike leadership of the general strike by the plenary meeting of the Berlin factory councils.There have been many cases in which the trade union bureaucracy and social democracy have practised shameful treachery, and in these cases there have always been thousands and thousands of trade union members who nave thrown aside their trade union books and given up their membership; but this is not the case this time. The fighting workers have recognized that they must keep their trade unions united, and that it is their duty to rid themselves as rapidly as possible of the treacherous functionaries. Those social democrats and trade union bureaucrats who are calculating on being able to resume their rôle as saviours of the proletariat are doomed to disappointment. The masses are filled with an unexampled hate of bureaucracy. And when the social democratic newspaper scribes assert that the communists will be called to account by the masses for the “senseless putsch”, their words are flatly contradicted by the events in the trade unions and factories. This general strike has enormously increased the feeling of self-reliance among the workers. The Communist Party has won many tens of thousands of members. The masses recognize the Communist Party as the sole leader of the revolutionary proletariat, and the prohibition of the activity of the national committee of factory councils by the social democrat Severing, is the proof that the social democrats have lost all confidence in being able to regain the masses.The general strike has brought us the coalition between the social democracy and the bourgeoisie: the alliance of bankrupt bourgeoisie with bankrupt reformism. These two partners can only work together for their common ruin. For a certain time they can rule with the aid of martial law, and at the points of Fascist and national army bayonets. The next general strike of the workers will make a clean sweep of these methods of governing a working people, and will shatter to pieces the throne of the coalition confraternity. We share the opinion of the social democratic Chemnitzer Volksstimme, that: “the coalition signifies for social democracy and reformism the last move before checkmate”. Meanwhile we leave it to the bourgeoisie and to the social democrats to continue to philosophize over the “breakdown” of the Communist Party and the general strike. The German working class will march forwards and act.Top of the pageLast updated on 28 April 2023"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Labor MovementThe Lessons of the Last Miners’ Strike(15 March 1923)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 26, 15 March 1923, p. 206.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.The strike of the French miners which ended on February 21 raises the question of how far the struggles of the miners have any possibility of success when conducted on national lines. All great strike movements among the miners during the last few years have in the main failed. Either the strike collapsed as a result of betrayal on the part of the reformist leaders, or it has been defeated by the forces at the disposal of the capitalist state. The workers have only in a very few cases attained a partial success. And only then when the circumstances were particularly favorable, This latter was the case in the American miners’ strike, and in the strike of the French miners. But all other fights have been lost, and were bound to be lost under the circumstance in which they took place.Two currents are struggling against one another in the trade union movement: the one in favor of working unity with the bourgeoisie, and the other opposed to this – the revolutionary current. Nearly all the miners’ unions are in the hands of leaders who support working unity. These leaders are of the opinion that the class interests of the proletariat should be subordinated to the general interests of the state, that is, to the needs of the capitalist state. Since the revolution, every strike undertaken by the German miners has been systematically wrecked by the trade union bureaucracy, and this trade union bureaucracy has invariably explained to the workers that state necessity demanded the abandonment of the strike. This was the case in Czechoslovakia, and in Poland. We can still clearly remember the utterance of J.H. Thomas, the chairman of the Amsterdam Trade Union International and leader of the English railwaymen’s union: it was thanks to the command issued by him to break off the last miners’ strike in England that the fall of the English governing power was prevented. The Frenchman Bartuel was one of the most zealous advocates of the dictates of the Spa agreement, which forces the German miners not only to toil for the German capitalist, but to permit himself to be robbed at the same time for the benefit of French imperialists. The revolutionary section of the workers however, is of the opinion that every endeavor must be directed to defend the interests of the workers as a class. The interests of the workers unlike the interests of the bourgeoisie, do not clash on any national frontier. The workers of all countries have one common interest, the bourgeoisies have opposing interests. When revolutionary workers stand for a ruthless struggle for the defence of workers’ interests, they, at the same time, stand for the international action of the proletariat against capitalism and its attendant dangers.The coal agreement made at Spa threw great numbers of English miners out of work, and rendered the French and Belgian miners incapable of delending their wages and working conditions with any prospect of success. The low wages of the German miners are to blame for the low wages and misery of the miners in all other countries. The reformist miners leaders know this very well, it can scarcely be assumed that they are too stupid to see it. But their relations with their national bourgeoisie are much closer than their relations with the international proletariat, and with the collective interests of the working class.This is again plainly illustrated by the miners’ strike in France. In the first place the French capitalists had created adverse conditions for obtaining coal supplies, in both areas, by the occupation of the Ruhr. Germany is cut off from the Ruhr coal. Transport to France is prevented by the counter-action of the German railwaymen, who have stopped work on the railroads of the occupied territory. For the first time for many years the French miners had the opportunity of utilizing the embarrassment of the French capitalists for the purpose of gaining better wages and working conditions. The revolutionary miners utilized the situation, but the reformist leaders demanded blackleg service from their followers. They could not permit a wage strike of the miners to hinder the imperialist adventure of the French capitalists. Thus Bartuel and his friends have deprived the French workers of the success of their wage struggle, and have sided with Poincaré.The case was exactly the same in Czecho-Slovakia. The miners, long suffering from capitalist attacks, during the last few weeks, attempted to fight for better wages. But as Czechoslovakia has friendly relations with France, the reformist leaders of the Czecho-Slovakian miners thought fit to oppose the fight of the Czech miners. In England the miners’ leaders also seized the opportunity of rendering their ruling class a service. The struggle in the Ruhr area and the strike of the French miners gave the English colliery owners the chance of doing good business. Now they were able to sell coal to the Germans and French. This favorable state of their market was utilized by the English bourgeoisie, who doubled the price of coal. The English colliery owners triumphantly announced that, thanks to this stale of affairs, the number of English unemployed had sunk by 125,000. The English reformist leaders share the joys of their bourgeoisie so fully, that Mr Hodges replied to the demand made by the revolutionary miners of various countries, for the organization of a joint action against Poincaré’s imperialist policy, with the answer that the situation was not suitable for starting such a movement. And indeed, why should the chairman of the miners’ international trouble about proletarian measures for international fighting, so long as the English bourgeoisie is doing good business, and few crumbs from its full table fail to its lackeys."
}
|
{
"content": "In England the rise in the the price of coal is accompanied by a rise in food prices, and it will not be long before the English miners will have to fight to have their wages adjusted to the higher prices. If Poincaré is victorious in the Ruhr, enormous quantities of cheap German coal will speedily appear on the French market, and it will be impossible for the French miners to defend their working conditions against the capitalists. Should the Ruhr conflict end with the victory of Poincaré, the Czech miners will also be forced into a precarious position. Should the German bourgeoisie come to an understanding with the French in the Ruhr, it will not be long before the English miners will be again, out of work. The German bourgeoisie utilizes the Ruhr conflict to lengthen the working hours of the German miners. When once these worsened working conditions have been introduced, then it is a matter of indifference whether Poincaré or Cuno is the victor, for the bad working conditions imposed on the German miners will have a decisive influence on the working conditions of the miners in other parts of the world. Instead of the miners of Europe mutually supporting each other by joint action for the defence of their class interests, and thus striking a severe blow at their class enemy, they have, under their reformist leaders, done precisely the contrary. The most favorable moment for joint action is again missed. The hand outstretched by the revolutionary worker for the formation of a united front is scornfully rejected. Hodges refuses any alliance, that is, with the working class, but not with the English bourgeoisie. Bartuel, who organized the blackleg action of the reformists in France, has not only thereby helped French mining capital out of a critical situation, he has at the same time weakened the labor organizations, and rendered hundreds and thousands of workers incapable of fighting.But the behaviour of the German reformists during this period has been the most idiotic of all. They are desirous that the English and French labor leaders, especially the miners’ leaders, help them to ward off the attack of French imperialism. At the same time they are in such a state of senseless rage against workers holding communist views, that they attack the fighting communists in the most despicable manner and do not desire the victory of the revolutionary miners of France, but the victory of the reformist Bartuel, the ally of Poincaré. Is it to be wondered, under such circumstances, that the workers are reduced to impotency and the Stinnes of every country triumph?The French miners’ strike has once more demonstrated the complete bankruptcy of reformism. The cowardly and bourgeois-coalition attitude of the reformist leaders can serve nobody but the capitalists, nobody but the national bourgeoisie of each country. The breakdown of economics, and of the labor movement, is bound to become continually worse under such circumstances, unless the revolutionary workers succeed in completely overthrowing the whole wretched reformist policy. The mining strike in France has opened the eyes of many thousands of pit slaves. They have recognized the dangers of reformism, and are turning to the revolutionary trade union organizations of the C.G.T.U. The example set by the French combatants has had a stimulating effect upon the Belgian miners. The resistance of the Belgian coal miners against their employers is growing; these miners are no longer listening to the hoarse shouting of the Belgian reformists, who maintain that the unrest among the Belgian miners is solely the result of communist agitation. The revolutionary miners must utilize the unrest obtaining among the miners of every country. They must show their fellow-miners that only by joint action can they hope for success, that they must no longer permit themselves to be exploited by their reformist leaders for the benefit of their national bourgeoisie, but they must all stand together in one common front for the ruthless defence of their class interests. Fresh conflicts are arising all round; it must be our work to prepare ourselves thoroughly for the fight, that it may end in a victory over the capitalists and reformists.Top of the pageLast updated on 2 September 2022"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Library > Zetkin > Heckert > Newbold > Radek Zetkin et al.Open LetterTo the London and Vienna Internationalsand the Amsterdam Trade Union International(16 January 1923)Source: International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 8, 19 January 1923, p. 62.Transcription & HTML Markup: Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists’ Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.On the 13th of this month the Executive of the Communist International had addressed the question to you, as to what you intend to do in order to carry out the decision of the Hague Conference regarding the organization of a general strike in case of a war. The Executive of the Communist International has empowered the undersigned, together with Marcel Cachin, to enter into negotiations with you on the question of a common fight against the danger of war. Owing to the persecutions to which the Communist Party of France is subjected because of its struggle against the occupation of the Ruhr, and owing to his impending arrest, Comrade Marcel Cachin is unable to participate in these negotiations. The undersigned are awaiting your reply to form a joint Committee of Action with you, capable of taking up lhe struggle against the threatening war.At the Hague, the Russian Trade Union delegation proposed that an international protest strike be called for the 2nd of January. This would have demonstrated to the international bourgeoisie the determination of the proletariat to wage war against the dangers of fresh wars. At the Hague, the Russian trade union delegation predicted that January would surely see the occupation of the Ruhr. Our warnings at the Hague fell on deaf ears. Those present at the conference were satisfied with platonic protests, in the belief that bourgeois diplomacy would find some way out. But as we have seen these last four years, capitalist diplomacy has completely failed to create the simplest conditions for the peaceful development of the world. The occupation of the Ruhr threatens the world wit ha new and unprecedented wholesale slaughter.The French plan aims not only at compelling the German capitalists to pay over money, but also to force them to admit French interests to the exploitation of these properties and thereby to add great numbers of cheap workers to the low paid labor army already at the disposal of Entente Imperialism.But this plan was based on the assumption that the French occupation authorities would be able to supervise the Ruhr Valley, to keep industry going and, by distributing or retaining the coal, to force the German industry into submission. But with the removal of the German Coal Syndicate from Essen to Hamburg, the French plan suffered shipwreck. The French occupation authorities are helpless, and find it impossible to keep the Ruhr industry alive. Every succeeding day makes it more difficult for them to pay out the miners' wages. For this reason it is almost certain that they will reach out beyond the boundaries of the Ruhr Valley in order to tighten their pressure upon the German people.Already we near of war preparations in Poland. France will set her vassals against Germany. But apart from all this every moment is liable to bring a collision between the French troops and the Ruhr population, In which case the nationalistic spirit in Germany may reach its explosive point. Should It happen that the French military elements will take advantage of Poincaré’s difficulties in order to drive him on towards the Rhine-Secession-Policy, – the policy of dismembering Germany, – it may also well be that the chauvinistic elements in Germany will precipitate a war, in order to profit by the nationalistic craze for the purpose of seizing power by means of a counter-revolution.Already The governments on either bank of the Rhine do not know what the morrow may bring. On the 31st of January the situation will become more acute, for on that day Germany will not be in a position to pay the sums demanded of her. The possibility then arises that the separate action of the French government may turn into a general inter-Allied action. In that case the German people may be faced with the only alternative: Complete subjugation and enslavement, – or War.The Hague conference has decided that the proletariat would fight the danger of war with all means at its disposal, and that in case of imminent danger a general strike would be called.The danger of war is here. Only the blind can fail to see it It is not only a question of war between France and Germany alone. Such a war would set the whole East and South East of Europe ablaze. The capture of Memel by Lithuania and the events on the Roumanian-Hungarian frontier demonstrate clearly the acuteness of the present situation, in which all forces tend to render every central European conflict, the starting point for a fresh European catastrophe.We doubt not but that the leaders of the Amsterdam Trade Union International, as well as those of the Vienna and London Internationals see the situation in the same light as we do. We therefore call upon you to lend reality to the solemn declarations which you have made at the Hague only a month ago, and to take the preparatory measures for the undelayed organization of the mass strike, we call upon you to meet us without delay, in order to decide upon this necessary steps to be taken.The parties of the Communist International and the working masses behind the Red Labor Union International will do their duty, as our French comrades have sufficiently demonstrated.We propose the 31st of January as the day when the international protest mass-strike is to begin."
}
|
{
"content": "The duration of the strike must be decided upon by the joint conference of the three political and the two trade union Internationals. We propose that this conference be held on the 21st of January in Berlin. Should you prefer another place, we have no objection whatever. We only ask you to act immediately, so that the undersigned may have ample opportunity to obtain the necessary visas.Berlin, January 16, 1923 For the Communist InternationalClara Zetkin, Walton Newbold, Karl RadekFor the Red International of Labor UnionsHeckertP.S. The other delegates, Comrades Dudilieux, Hais and Watkins, could not be reached until now. Top of the pageLast updated on 11 August 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Labor MovementThe Party and the Trade Unionsin Germany(10 October 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 87, 10 October 1922, pp. 658–659.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.The beginnings of the German trade union movement – The practice of the former Social Democratic Party – The subordination of the Party to the trade union bureaucracy – Its consequences: 1914 – Confusion of ideas after the Revolution – The Communist tactics*In Germany, more than in every other country, the question of the relationship between the workers’ party and the trade union has at all times played an important role. We may justly say that the trade union movement in Germany owes its life to the Social Democracy. Founded by Socialist workers, its development always remained bound up with that of Socialism. The anti-Socialist law of 1878 ruined at the same time both the party and the trade unions.After their abrogation, the trade unions turned reformist and their leaders hoped to divert them from the influence of the Social Democratic Party. The political neutrality of the trade unions was affirmed, as well as the necessity for giving them an independent central direction. Perceiving a hidden motive in the plan, formulated by Karl Legien, of creating a “general council of the German trade unions” whose rights would be equal to those of the party, William Liebknecht sharply attacked the project at the Congress of the Social Democratic Party in Cologne, 1893. Accusing the trade union leaders of the intention to turn the masses away from the class struggle and to lead them to reformism, he declared that the independence of the unions would only be a concession to the bourgeoisie, accustomed as they were to regard labor organizations as subversive, and that all opportunism of this sort was only in adaptation to the bourgeois state. The majority of the Socialist workers under the influence of labor leaders all belonging to the Democratic Party, found the fears of William Liebknecht exaggerated. No one wished to believe that it would be possible ever to separate the party from the unions. The Congress of the Social Democrats decided that all members of the Party ought to belong to the trade unions while the trade union Congress enjoined its members to affiliate with the Party. The trade unions were regarded as recruiting fields of the Party.When the revisionist movement arose about 1900, it hoped to gain support in the labor organizations. When, in 1903, Theodor Boemelburg, president of the bricklayers’ union pronounced that celebrated sentence at the Congress of Cologne, “The trade unions and the Party are but one and the same”, it was already then no more than a hollow phrase. The trade union leaders made use of the General Council of Trade Unions to extend their influence over the party and to attempt to dominate it. The Social Democratic Congress of Mannheim (1906) decided that the Central Committee ought to come to an understanding with the trade unions before any mass movement. In that way the General Council of Trade Unions became a new central executive organ of the working class. Certainly, in signing the pact of Mannheim, it assumed the same obligation on its part; but this cost it nothing, as it was resolutely hostile to all mass actions. Boemelburg declared, “The general strike is a general madness!” and unanimous applause drowned his voice.When the imperialist war broke out, the victory of the trade union bureaucracy over the Central Committee of the party was an accomplished fact. On the 4th of August 1914, the trade union leaders flatly declared that they would compel the leaders of the party to vote the war credits and to realize the fatal union with the bourgeoisie. The party capitulated unconditionally. The dictatorship of the Council of Trade Unions over the Social Democratic Party was so little concealed that when during the summer of 1915 a feeble opposition manifested itself in the party, the labor bureaucracy uttered the following threats:“We must support with all our power the majority of the Central Committee of the party and urge it on to the path we deem good. And even if the opposition should seize power, we would not be able to remain neutral, and would be obliged to create a new party.”Fritz Ebert then received the warm congratulations of Leipart, the president of the General Council of Trade Unions, for having energetically emphasized the will of the Central Committee of the party to continue at all cost the policy of August 1914. The Social Democratic Party of Germany was preparing to follow the path of denials, betrayals and counter-revolution, under the impulsion of the bureaucratic trade unions, up to the eve of the November Revolution, up to August 8th, 1918.Since before the war a small group of militant revolutionaries, under the leadership of Rosa Luxemburg, had been battling to lead the trade unions back to the class struggle. But its efforts met with little success. Though gagged during the war, it was yet they who recommenced serious propaganda for revolutionary action in the trade unions. We have not forgotten that at the significant Congress of the Independent Social Democratic Party at Gotha, during Easter 1917, Hugo Haase exclaimed: “The trade unions are the most resistant ramparts of reaction. Without them the war would have been ended long ago!” But at no time did the leaders of the Independent Party cause a breach in these ramparts.Since the war, during the Revolution, and up to the present, the labor leaders and the Social Democrats have persisted on the path they had traced before the war, and their constant collaboration with the bourgeoisie has been but the logical consequence of this spirit."
}
|
{
"content": "During the Proletarian Revolution, nationalism, reformism, and the deeds of the trade union bureaucracy during the war and the revolution, produced such disgust in the end, that the workers came to the most divergent conclusions as to the relationship between the party and the trade unions.Some thought that so much treason had been possible only because there existed two parallel organizations (party and trade unions) and that it was necessary to create a united political and economic organization.Others believed the cause of the social-patriotic deviations to be found in the form of the trade union organizations. They advocated the establishment of unions on a federal basis, which would assure the broadest autonomy to every organization and locality.Still others urged the most complete political neutrality of the unions.The confusion was increased by the direct action of the working masses, organized in factory and workshop councils at the beginning of the revolution. From these direct actions the militants drew the conclusion that the epoch of trade unions had been ended and that it was necessary to replace them by factory councils.To arrive at real revolutionary lucidity, the German proletariat had to undergo a long series of failures and defeats in its struggle against the capitalists and the State, in its efforts designed to establish new unions, in its attempts to put new trade union doctrines into practice.In the course of these experiences, the number of workers grew who recognized that trade unions are necessary organizations, that they have certain definite primary tasks to fulfill during the revolution and the period of transition from Capitalism to Socialism. On this basis it was possible to agree upon action.Since 1920, sincere revolutionists have been convinced that the trade unions could tackle their tasks only on condition of definitely breaking with their former policy of collaboration of classes. This collaboration, in fact, subordinated the vital interests of the proletariat to the conservation of capitalism; sacrificed the eight-hour day, wages, the production of labor. If the workers wish to maintain or improve their conditions of living they must defend themselves against capitalism; and the least resistance today has revolutionary consequences. In order successfully to oppose its class-enemy, the proletariat as a whole ought to stand up against it; whence the need for a united front, the first condition for proletarian action against capitalism. To this condition we can add another: the international concentration of the active proletarian forces. These conditions are well founded, and it is they that divide the proletariat into two opposing camps: one of the revolutionary class struggle, and the other of cooperation with the bourgeoisie.The more the revolutionary influence extended into the unions, the more energetically reacted the trade union bureaucracy. To combat the latter, to defend itself, to enlighten the working class upon the dangers of cooperation with the bourgeoisie, the revolutionary workers organized in the Communist Party created fractions or “cells” in the unions. These new groups undertake systematically to win the unions for revolutionary action. They interest themselves in all the aspects of the workers’ life and aim for united action of all the proletarian elements. The Communist workers of Germany have also commended the decisions of the Second Congress of the Communist International on the functions of trade unions.The Central Committee of the German Communist Party has established a Trade Union Council which gives a single direction to all the Communist nuclei in factory, shop, or union, and organizes national and local groupings, we are benefiting today from the practical experience of 18 months of assiduous labor. In our struggle to conquer the unions we sustained grave losses. Thousands of good militants have been expelled from the unions by the reformist bureaucracy. The General Council of Trade Unions has just proclaimed that the principal task of the unions consists actually in fighting the Communist cells. Despite everything, however, we have succeeded in binding ourselves more and more strongly to the working masses. The elections of the factory committees, of local trade union committees, of representatives to the congress constantly attest to the growth of our influence. In 1921 the Communist who was a member of a “cell” was very simply expelled from the trade union organization. This year the Congress of German trade unions has recognized the Communist “cells”, not legally to be sure, but actually. The bureaucracy had to yield before facts.We are only in the beginning of our work, but we cannot doubt of success. We shall lead the trade unions back to the class struggle. Better yet! – Our revolutionary activity in the trade union movement strengthens it. if after so much deception the German trade unions still remain the organizations of the masses they are, it is in a large measure thanks to us. It is our activity which has restored confidence to the workers.The extension of the revolutionary movement among the trade unions cannot but proceed together with the extension of Communist influence over the masses. The unions are again becoming the recruiting field of the revolutionary political organization of the proletariat. And we are seeing the day approach when the party and the trade unions will constitute anew but a single revolutionary force directed against the capitalist system.Top of the pageLast updated on 2 January 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert F. HeckertDiscussionThe Tasks off the Communistsin the Trade Union Movement(December 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 116, 22 December 1922, pp. 965–966.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.Comrades, Comrade Lozovsky told us this morning we must adopt a clear, unequivocal policy on the trade union question; he warned us especially against precipitate policy and advised us to reject any tactics which might lead to a split in the trade unions. He stated this very clearly. He said: If we had accepted the slogan of splitting the trade unions, or in anyway acquiesced in it, it would have meant destruction for the whole Communist movement. I also believe that we communists would have been guilty of the greatest error if we had propagated the splitting of the trade unions, or made any concessions to those elements that want to bring about such a split. I hope that this Congress will express clearly that every splitting tendency must be fought ruthlessly. It is absolutely necessary to show to the working class that we are for unity of the trade unions, if we are to carry on any serious propaganda for the United Front. We would make ourselves ridiculous before, yea, despised by the whole working class if we were to fight for the United Front and sympathise at the same time with the splitters.However, in many countries, the trade unions have already been split, not only just now by the Amsterdamers, but because parallel organizations existed in those trades before and during the war. At the last Congress we had put before our comrades that it was their task to work in those dual organizations for union. Our communist comrades have not done all they could in this line. In fact, in all countries where the trade unions are split, the communists, instead of fighting for one common goal, have often opposed one another. I would therefore like to say this: every communist who does not support other communists, who are active in some other organizations, helps the reformists and those who want to break up the trade union movement. It is therefore our first duty as communists to eliminate all our little differences and to work together for a common goal. I absolutely admire our Italian comrades who have brought it about in their organization that their members understand that they must be active even in Fascist organizations, that even there we must create our cells.The policy of cell formation has been much attacked even after the Third World Congress. In the German Party, for instance, there was quite a conflict on this point. There was a whole group of comrades who declared that cells were bad, and there developed among those comrades a liquidating tendency which purposed to destroy the whole trade union work of the Comintern and the whole international communist trade union movement. We have opposed these elements. This tendency was the cause of the Friesland crisis. We have expelled those people from our organizations and conducted a decisive fight to realise the unity of all revolutionary comrades. Naturally there have been unnecessary conflicts in this struggle; many a communist did not speak or act wisely enough: But it does not suffice to deal with the opposition to so-called revolutionary unions in our Party with a few words, as Comrade Lozovsky did when he declared that Comrade Masloff had acted very foolishly and written an idiotic article against the communists, and that Comrade Heckert and Brandler saved the situation.Comrades, I will not agree to have this order of the Salvation of the Unions pinned on my breast; I will not accept to characterise Masloff’s action as criminal and damnable without first saying that the unionists are partly responsible lor it. We must divide the blame between both sides, if we wish to be just. The fault of the Party is that it did not realise that this policy would make for conflicts if we did not carry on sufficient preparatory work in the unions. We relied upon it that the Communists in the union would to the work. What happened was that our Unionist friends fought against the formation of factions and our Party comrades let the thing drag without any work. That is why it came to such conflicts with the union. Luckily, we were able to reach an agreement at the union Congress at the beginning of October and to create a basis for harmonious cooperation in the future. But many other Communist Parties have followed this bad example of not forming cells within the Unions."
}
|
{
"content": "I would like to mention especially two parties that have been guilty of this omission. First the French Party which in spite of its promises of last year to become active in the C.G.T.U., to build cells within that Federation, did nothing till the events came to a. point when the split was accomplished and the French Trade Union movement became a perfect muddle. At its Congress in Marseilles, the French Party had the opportunity of gaining the leadership of the revolutionary movement in France if it had followed the advice which had been given it, namely, to create a program which would unite all revolutionary forces. The French Party did not do this; nothing was said at the Congress as to what the Communists should do in the Trade Unions; Comrade Magoux who has since been expelled is not a little responsible for the crisis in the French Party. This should be a lesson to us for the future. When a Party takes a stand on all questions before the working class, it will be possible to create closer connections between the leaders of the Unions and the Party as a result of which such people as Monmousseau and Monatte will become members of our Party, our Party will become a real proletarian organization and no one who does not base the policy of the Party on the proletariat will get the leadership. The old dissentions must be put an end to. The Comintern must use all its influence on the leaders of the Party and the C.G.T.U. to co-operate in the interests of the working class of France.A word on Czecho-Slovakia. We found the same tendencies in the Czecho-Slovakian Party. It was primarily the Trade Union leaders in the Party who opposed the formation of cells. Many comrades said quite openly: Why cells? That only leads to trouble; it suffices when the leaders of the Trade Unions are Communists. But it must have become apparent to our Czechoslovakian comrades that tins did not suffice. Had they formed strong cells in the Unions a year ago, Tayerle would not hold today such a position as he does.I believe that our bad experience in Germany, and the example of France and Czecho-Slovakia, will teach us in the future to pay more attention to the resolutions of previous Congresses.A few words more on the German situation. We will not say that all our attempts to win the Trade Unions were good attempts. Comrade Lozowsky said this morning that tens of thousands of member; are leaving the agricultural organizations without the Party taking any action. There are other causes for this, however, than those Comrade Lozovsky advanced.It is true that the German movement of the agricultural workers has lost hundreds of thousands of members. But the reason is that these organizations are led by a bureaucracy which does nothing but make “Socialist\" politics, and the interests of the workers are subordinate to the interests of the social-democratic politicians. Since no one interested himself in the agricultural workers, these workers rebelled. Unorganized before the war, the agricultural workers in Germany had an organization of 800,000 workers after the revolution. At the highest period of its existence, the “Deutsche Landarbeiterverband” numbered 27,000 members; during the war this number fell to 3,000. This post-war organization was therefore something quite new, and the bureaucracy of the Federation made use of the organization to further its own interest.We had already attempted to approach the agricultural workers in 1919. We formed a so-called Communist agricultural union. This was a complete failure. If the revolution had proceeded further, had we been able to do something in the interest of the agricultural workers, it would have been a different story. Since this was not the case, the Social Democrats kept the control of the agricultural workers organization in their own hands.In the following years, hundreds of thousands left the organization. Our comrades were faced with the problem: should they reunite these working masses into a new organization led by Communists, but which would not be capable of fighting, or should we not be afraid that the Amsterdamers would use this as a new excuse for an offensive against the Communists, and would say, here you have another proof that the Communists are trying to split the Labor Unions.Had we attempted to form a new organization at the time when we were not masters of the situation, the task would simply have been too great for us. I will not deny that we might have been more active in some questions. But our lack of strength on the one side, and the tremendous apparatus of the Amsterdamers on the other, makes it hard for us to undertake any action: there have been many cases when we have prevented a foolish action on the part of some impatient comrade only with difficulty.At a time when class differences have become so great, when our problems are so difficult, it is inadvisable to undertake any action tor which the working class is unprepared. To gain influence over the working class we must possess a well organized apparatus, and not only that, but also the confidence of the large masses of the working class in our communist policy. I believe that I can say in the name of the Party that we will be letter prepared lor a fight in the next month because our Party is gaining the confidence of ever larger masses of the proletariat. The Party can undertake greater actions now, because it has the broad masses which sympathise with it, and possesses an apparatus capable of leading a movement.But we can offer no panacea. I wish to underline what Comrade Lozovsky said this morning, for every country we need a Trade Union programme which corresponds with the peculiar conditions of that country; we must state our task clearly so that the masses will understand us. We also need a different policy for every industrial group, often for every union, and if Comrade Carr allows, I will take two more minutes to explain this."
}
|
{
"content": "In Germany, for instance, we can organize the building trades for action. When we control a whole section, we can defeat the employers who are not yet strongly entrenched, not yet organized all over the country; the situation is quite different among the railroad workers. There are over a million workers among the railroad employers. But we are opposed by all the powers of the State. It has created laws to suppress the workers. We could tell the Building Trade workers: Break off with Päplow; we will build our own organization and fight the employers for better conditions.If we attempt the same with the railways, we will surely be defeated because we shall be opposed by the whole power of the State. The State can defeat us and throw all the revolution elements at once out of employment. In this way, we lost almost 2,000 of our best comrades last year.And just as we require different tactics for the building workers than for the railroad workers, so we require different methods for the other organizations. Among the metal workers, for instance, we have progressed so far, that the Dissmanites do not dare any longer to expel us as a body, because we posses almost half the membership and the opposition would be too great. Among the agricultural workers, we do not know the policy of the Amsterdamers. It seems as if we should proceed with the formation of a new organization, because we cannot tolerate that the gulf be widened.In closing my speech, allow me to make the following recommendations: First, that all Communist Parties must proceed to the creation of cells and carry out the decisions of the Second and Third World Congresses; second, to create a program of action for every group of industry which will permit us conduct our struggle as the circumstances require; third, to forbid our comrades, in the various revolutionary organizations or in dual Trade Union organizations, to fight each other and thereby afford great joy to our enemies.Top of the pageLast updated on 2 January 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertThe Labor MovementThe Union Congress at Essen(7 October 1922)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 89, 17 October 1922, pp. 673–674.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2020). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.The Union of Hand and Brain Workers of Germany convened its 2nd congress at Essen from the 1st to 5th October, in order to consider the work accomplished in the past year and to define its attitude to the tasks which as a revolutionary workers’ movement are to be fulfilled by it in the coming months.The congress was an exceedingly instructive one, for it showed that the workers of this organization have learnt much since their first congress in Halle in the year 1921, and that they are minded to draw the necessary conclusions from these lessons. At the first congress of the R.I.L.U. the representatives of the unions now united in the Union of Hand and Brain Workers adopted a position which was sharply in opposition to the principles and the tactics of the R.I.L.U.The first congress of the R.I.L.U. was thus compelled to submit some questions to the members of the Union at their congress in Halle to which clear, unequivocal replies were demanded. The Union had to decide whether it would work on the basis of the decisions reached at the first world congress of the R.I.L.U. in Moscow in order thereby to become affiliated to the R.I.L.U., or to reject the principles and decisions of the first world congress and place itself outside this world union of the revolutionary proletariat.The Halle congress disavowed the attitude of the Union’s delegates at the Moscow congress and declared in favor of affiliation to the R.I.L.U. The resolution however, in which this declaration was embodied did not signify unconditional acceptance of the conditions, but was in its content a concession to the syndicalist and federalist tendencies prevalent in the union. The ambiguous character of the resolution rendered it possible for a number of members of the Union, in the course of the following months to undertake to correct the decisions of the first world congress and to aver again and again that the principles and tactics of the R.I.L.U. did not correspond to the experiences and necessities of the class struggle; that a correction of the decisions of the first world congress in the direction of the opinions represented by the Union delegates at this congress, must be undertaken at the 2nd world congress, otherwise the union would have no interest in membership of the R.I.L.U.This attitude of a number of comrades in the Union led to continuous differences with the comrades of the German trade union opposition, and instead of dose cooperation-between the Union and the latter there were often lively disputes injurious to their common aims.The second congress of the Union at Essen, therefore had to test whether the majority of the members would call for a re-examination of the decisions reached in Halle, or whether, from the experiences won in practical struggle, they had drawn the knowledge to set aside the deficiencies of the organization, and to make out of the union a trade union, which, standing entirely on the basis of the R.I.L.U., shall strive firmly and steadfastly side by side with the trade union opposition for the common objective. The congress has made this thing clear and it can be joyfully recorded that the result of the congress means an essential step forward compared with the previous conditions in the Union.The chief differences still alive in the Union were: 1. The attitude towards the individual struggles of trade unions. 2. The question whether the union shall be a universal organization embracing workers of all categories and conducting not only the economic, but also the political struggle. 3. In what relation the Union shall stand to the reformist unions and their actions. 4. The question of the structure of the organization, the nature of the contributions and of the fighting fund of the Union. 5. The relation of the Union to the opposition within the old trade unions.In order that these questions should not be passed over, the Executive Committee of the R.I.L.U. wrote a letter to the congress of the Union of Hand and Brain Workers, in which it dealt exhaustively with these disputed questions and required from the congress that it should plainly and clearly define its attitude upon these points.Many an old unionist disliked the idea that it should so formulate its opinions that they could be taken as a dear avowal either for or against the principles of the R.I.L.U. The spirit, however, which dominated the overwhelming majority of the congress delegates, was, under all circumstances, to create clarity and under no circumstances to break connections with the R.I.L.U. They desired nothing more eagerly than the consolidation of the organization and the setting up of good relations for united activity with the trade union opposition. It was therefore easy to submit all problems to the congress and to formulate dear answers to these questions. The representative of the Communist Party, whose remarks were followed with the greatest attention, was therefore able to expound io the congress what deficiencies were to be noted in the tactics of the Union and in the structure of the organization, in what way these were to be removed, the Union itself rendered more fit for the struggle, and friendly and comradely relations established with the trade union opposition."
}
|
{
"content": "On the first item of the agenda an attitude was adopted towards the trade union situation and to the tasks of the union in the revolutionary movement of the proletariat Upon these questions it was unanimously agreed that every attempt to separate the political from the economic struggle of the worker means a weakening of the working class and is counter revolutionary; that the proletariat must strive to concentrate its fight against the well-organized bourgeoisie, and that only the concentrated class power of the proletariat is capable of overcoming the bourgeoisie.From this standpoint the Union declared that political neutrality is not permissible for a revolutionary worker, that the union should therefore support every revolutionary action and shall take active put in the struggle for the realization of all demands in the interests of the workers. The Union declared that its immediate and most pressing tasks were: the building up and extension of its organization, based upon workshop organizations according to the branch of industry and economic area; increased struggle against indifference; the publication of clearly written revolutionary trade union literature; the formation of a strong fighting fund; support of the revolutionary opposition in the Amsterdam unions; struggle against the policy of cooperation with the employers; increasing of real wages; defence of the eight hour day; extension of the rights of the workshop councils; struggle against high prices, and for the control of production, etc.Another resolution determined the relationship between the party and the union, and a sharp distinction was made against the syndicalist and anarchist elements. This resolution declares: that the proletarian class struggle has an international character and that international action can only be carried out provided there is international discipline, Autonomy of individual organizations or countries within an International means the bankruptcy of every workers’ movement; this is proved by the yellow Amsterdam international. In a revolutionary trade union organization the struggle must be conducted without regard to the interests of the capitalists. It can only be carried out successfully in connection with the revolutionary political organization of the proletariat The conquest of political power, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the prerequisite for the final victory of the proletariat in the fight for its emancipation from economic slavery.The Union recognized that the Communist Party points out the aim in this struggle and that it must take the lead in the whole struggle for the achievement of this aim. It therefore becomes necessary to establish close contact between the revolutionary trade unions and the Communist Party.The Union expressly declares it to be its duty as a member of the Red international of Labor Unions, 1. to subordinate itself to international discipline, 2. to carry out the congress decisions of the R.I.L.U. and 3. to proceed unitedly in all actions with the revolutionary organizations as well as with the Communist Party.In order to render possible and to facilitate this common action, the union proposes the formation of Revolutionary Workers’ Committees of all revolutionary proletarian organizations throughout the country. The purpose of these revolutionary committees shall be to take a stand on all economic and political questions which interest the proletariat, and to establish close contact between these organizations.An attempt is made in the newly drawn-up statute to create an organizatory basis corresponding to the decisions of the congress relating to principles and tactics which will facilitate the fulfilment of the tasks laid down. In future the Union will organize the workers affiliated to it into industrial groups according to the principle of one industry, one union. The industrial groups retain the right of independent management, conducting of wage struggles, conclusion of collective agreements and establishing of international connections.In order to simplify the managing apparatus, a unified system of contributions will be introduced for industrial groups. In order to conduct struggles unitedly and energetically a central fighting fund will be created.It must be noted that the overwhelming majority of the congress recognized that the future tasks of the organization can only be fulfilled provided the members make greater financial sacrifices. The minimum weekly contribution was therefore fixed at the amount of half an hours wages.At the conclusion of the congress, the chairman summarized the results of the congress and said among other things: “We recognize the decisions of the R.I.L.U. upon the tactics of revolutionizing the trade unions as binding for us. We shall offer the most determined struggle against all reformist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. We will support the revolutionary opposition in the reformist trade unions in their hard struggle with all our power, and shall establish fraternal relationships with them.”All the decisions of the congress were essentially influenced by the intensive work of the representative of the Red International of Labor Unious which was gratefully welcomed by the delegates. Through its assistance in clearing up many questions of the proletarian class struggle and by its assistance in the improvement of the management of the organization the Red International of Labor Unions has shown itself as an organization adequate for the international revolutionary tasks.In six days of strenuous labor an enormous amount of work was accomplished and it can be recorded with joy that the delegates present at the congress fulfilled the duties entrusted to them with close attention and admirable devotion. This cannot be said of most of the trade union conferences which have taken place this year in Germany.The results of the congress are a great advance compared with the results of the congress at Halle. The experience of the 12 months which separate the two congresses have shown to the Union that many old views must, in the interest of the revolutionary movement, be thrown overboard, and that it is necessary to root out relentlessly all failings in the organisation.The congress at Essen has rendered the Union capable of carrying out the greater tasks of the coming months.Top of the pageLast updated on 2 January 2021"
}
|
{
"content": "MIA > Archive > Fritz Heckert Fritz HeckertCommunist Recruiting WeekThe Aims of Recruiting Week(1 November 1921)From International Press Correspondence, Vol. I No. 4, 1 November 1921, pp. 33–34.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2019). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.With the motto “Go to the Masses’, the Communist International summons all its members to agitate during the week of November 3rd–10th among the great masses of the urban and rural proletariat, as yet unresponsive to Communism, and to rouse them to the struggle for freedom. The Communist International is undertaking for the first time a general mobilization throughout the world, wherever proletarians are groaning under the heel of the oppressor. The workers are becoming more and more disillusioned concerning the “glorious times promised to them in the large capitalist countries in return for their participation in the World-War adventure. The policy of the capitalist class has resulted in an overwhelming wave of unemployment, a staggering rise in the cost of living and an imperilling of the worker’s existence. If the workers try to resist, if they try to organize in self-defense, if they attempt to use the strike as a weapon, if they gather in demonstrations, the bestial bourgeoisie uses every means to strike them down, and calls this assassination “Protection of Rights’ and “Establishment of Order”. Influential labour-leaders have not only supported these measures of the bourgeoisie, but in many countries they alone have made them possible. During our Recruiting Week we must demonstrate to the workers that the continuation of capitalism, which they have tolerated until now, can only result in the ruin of the working class and of the economic life of the world.Our Recruiting Week, therefore, cannot he likened to the Recruiting Weeks of the Social Democratic Parties, which are only organized to win party-members or readers for their organs. We will also do everything possible to gain new members for the Communist partis and to increase the number of subscribers to the Communist periodicals. A party organization strong in members and a widely-spread communist press are necessary for the victory of the proletariat. The increasing of the membership cannot create, however, what the Recruiting Week should bring about. The composition of the Communist Party must be altogether different in quality from that of the Socialist Parties. The Communist Parties are parties of action, their members must at all hours be ready to make the greatest sacrifice for the cause of the proletariat ...We can say therefore, that our Recruiting Week depends especially on the spiritual contact of the Party with the large proletarian masses and also on the convincing of the workers remaining outside of the Party that the Communist International is their true leader.Keeping in mind the principal aim of Communism, our propagandists must come in close contact with the masses, and in connection with the daily struggles and needs of the workers show them the way leading out of capitalist slavery into freedom. The struggle for the final aim of Communism is only organized during the general struggle against life’s daily troubles. The spiritually backward proletarian is unable to realize that the struggle to free himself from these troubles leads to the overthrow of capitalism and the setting up of lhe dictatorship of the proletariat. To the ordinary workers reared in the oppressive capitalist system and lacking political opinions, the Communist aim seems so enormous that he cannot grasp it. and considers it unattainable and therefore utopian. The worker will learn to fight implacably for the Communist aim only when he realizes that, in the struggle for his existence, minor reforms cannot free him, and that he must give a larger form to the struggle for the freeing of the workers, and must use more effective means. The purpose of the Communist Party is to lead the workers in these unavoidable struggles in such a way that they will more easily find their way and suffer less defeat. In the Recruiting Week when we speak at meetings, when we peak with our colleagues, when we go from house to agitate, when we write in the periodicals, we will tell our suffering and oppressed class comrades what to do to succeed in the struggle against the doubles and needs of every day. This is not difficult. In the last few weeks the world economic crisis has become more acute in all countries, and has brought untold suffering to the working class. The world economic crisis appears under various aspects in different countries. In one country it has been an increase of unemployment, in another the tremendous rise in the cost of living, or both. The capitalist are trying to throw the burden of this world crisis on the working men. It is easy to make this clear to the workers."
}
|
{
"content": "When capitalist production does not bring sufficient profit, the capitalist uses every means to guard himself against loss. He throws the workers pitilessly out into the street. He raises the cost of living. He beats down salaries, and for this purpose he creates lock outs, mobilizes strike-breakers and organizes White-Guard bands whom he permits to murder working men and to destroy workers’ enterprises in order to intimidate the workers. The capitalist seeks to increase the hours of work or the efficiency of labor, in case wages remain the same. Protection for the workers is made impossible. The most indispensable articles are raised in price, the production of goods which do not bring big profits is stopped. We see this best in the failure to relieve the shortage in dwellings. Housing accommodations for the lower classes are neglected. Hospitals and nurseries are closed. Invalids, pensioners, and cripples are abandoned. Through the most subtle systems of taxation a considerable part of the workman’s income is stolen. In order to carry this out more easily the capitalist buys the periodicals, the newspapers, controls literary production and employs thousands of agitators to influence the workers in a manner favourable to his own interests. The capitalist strives to demoralize and to destroy the workers’ organizations, especially the labor unions. With a subtle system of swindle and lies capitalism tries to eliminate these organizations from the struggle against it. When it does not succeed in this, it tries to destroy them by means of force. Labor leaders are bought by the capitalist, an army of spies is suborned among the working class. Through special favours to single working men or groups of workers it is sought to split up the working masses. Those who are working are incited against the unemployed and vice versa. All these things can serve well in teaching the workmen. The majority of our class comrades do not understand the relation between these things. They live through the troubles of their time, helpless; they feel as if they are astray in a primeval forest. Their perception is often warped by the organizations on whose protection they depend. This does not necessarily happen because of the malice of the leaders of these organizations. It takes place naturally because most of the unions do not grasp the situation or because they are frightened by the enormity of the task. Our agitators must bear this situation in mind. They must therefore not try to blame all these faults of the labor organizations on the criminal leadership of these organizations. The faith of the working men in the justice of communism will not be strengthened through an continual nagging of the workers about their troubles and their bad leadership, but rather through our armor-plated argument, through our good advice, through the intelligent proposals we suggest to them to help them in their need, in our readiness to fight at the head of the workers even in the most insignificant struggles against daily suffering.The Recruiting Week must also give us a better conception of the psychology of the workers. We must learn the ways they react to the troubles which press upon them. We must be able to judge the value of their arguments against our doctrines and our tactics. We must learn to find the cardinal point in the working man’s soul, and in his understanding, in order to raise him from his lethargy and to turn him from an unfeeling follower or even an enemy into an active, energetic element in the proletarian class struggle.The results of our Recruiting Week need not show themselves in an immediate increase in the party membership or of subscribers of our periodicals. They must show themselves in the spirit which animates the workers in their struggles, and their reaction toward the Communist watch-words and to the directing of the struggle by our party. If there are no such results that will prove that our Party has not worked well. Will that show the deficiency of the Party itself and not the backwardness of the masses? The Recruiting Week will be the acid test of the ability of our organization, after a unified campaign, on an national and international scale, to interest the workmen in Communism and to mobilize them for the class struggle. The deficiencies in the organization which will be noted during the Recruiting Week or when the results are measured, must be removed.Every member of the Party has not only the opportunity but also the duty to show during Recruiting Week that he has fully earned the title of Communist. Everyone must help according to his ability, and everyone can help in the great work. In the Recruiting Week not only our own Party but the members of other workers’ parties can see whether we differ from the others only in revolutionary phrases or in purposeful work. Whoever impairs the success of Recruiting Week through idleness or bad propaganda harms this work not only immediately but permanently, because a failure of Recruiting Week will be a triumph to our opponents and will make our approach to the masses more difficult in the future. The aim of our Recruiting Week is limited; We must try not only to attain this goal but to surpass it. Every man to his post.Top of the pageLast updated on 9 January 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "Socialism in AfricaBiography : Julius Kambarage NyerereTranscribed by: Ayanda Madyibi.One of Africa’s most respected figures, Julius Nyerere (1922 — 1999) was a politician of principle and intelligence. Known as Mwalimu or teacher he had a vision of education that was rich with possibilityJulius Kambarage Nyerere was born on April 13, 1922 in Butiama, on the eastern shore of lake Victoria in north west Tanganyika. His father was the chief of the small Zanaki tribe. He was 12 before he started school (he had to walk 26 miles to Musoma to do so). Later, he transferred for his secondary education to the Tabora Government Secondary School. His intelligence was quickly recognized by the Roman Catholic fathers who taught him. He went on, with their help, to train as a teacher at Makerere University in Kampala (Uganda). On gaining his Certificate, he taught for three years and then went on a government scholarship to study history and political economy for his Master of Arts at the University of Edinburgh (he was the first Tanzanian to study at a British university and only the second to gain a university degree outside Africa. In Edinburgh, partly through his encounter with Fabian thinking, Nyerere began to develop his particular vision of connecting socialism with African communal living. On his return to Tanganyika, Nyerere was forced by the colonial authorities to make a choice between his political activities and his teaching. He was reported as saying that he was a schoolmaster by choice and a politician by accident. Working to bring a number of different nationalist factions into one grouping he achieved this in 1954 with the formation of TANU (the Tanganyika African National Union). He became President of the Union (a post he held until 1977), entered the Legislative Council in 1958 and became chief minister in 1960. A year later Tanganyika was granted internal self-government and Nyerere became premier. Full independence came in December 1961 and he was elected President in 1962. Nyerere’s integrity, ability as a political orator and organizer, and readiness to work with different groupings was a significant factor in independence being achieved without bloodshed. In this he was helped by the co-operative attitude of the last British governor — Sir Richard Turnbull. In 1964, following a coup in Zanzibar (and an attempted coup in Tanganyika itself) Nyerere negotiated with the new leaders in Zanzibar and agreed to absorb them into the union government. The result was the creation of the Republic of Tanzania.Ujamma, socialism and self reliance As President, Nyerere had to steer a difficult course. By the late 1960s Tanzania was one of the world’s poorest countries. Like many others it was suffering from a severe foreign debt burden, a decrease in foreign aid, and a fall in the price of commodities. His solution, the collectivization of agriculture, villigization (see Ujamma below) and large-scale nationalization was a unique blend of socialism and communal life. The vision was set out in the Arusha Declaration of 1967 (reprinted in Nyerere 1968): \"The objective of socialism in the United Republic of Tanzania is to build a society in which all members have equal rights and equal opportunities; in which all can live in peace with their neighbours without suffering or imposing injustice, being exploited, or exploiting; and in which all have a gradually increasing basic level of material welfare before any individual lives in luxury.\" (Nyerere 1968: 340) The focus, given the nature of Tanzanian society, was on rural development. People were encouraged (sometimes forced) to live and work on a co-operative basis in organized villages or ujamaa (meaning ‘familyhood’ in Kishwahili). The idea was to extend traditional values and responsibilities around kinship to Tanzania as a whole. Within the Declaration there was a commitment to raising basic living standards (and an opposition to conspicuous consumption and large private wealth). The socialism he believed in was ‘people-centred’. Humanness in its fullest sense rather than wealth creation must come first. Societies become better places through the development of people rather than the gearing up of production. This was a matter that Nyerere took to be important both in political and private terms. Unlike many other politicians, he did not amass a large fortune through exploiting his position.The policy met with significant political resistance (especially when people were forced into rural communes) and little economic success. Nearly 10 million peasants were moved and many were effectively forced to give up their land. The idea of collective farming was less than attractive to many peasants. A large number found themselves worse off. Productivity went down. However, the focus on human development and self-reliance did bring some success in other areas notably in health, education and in political identity.Liberation struggles A committed pan-Africanist, Nyerere provided a home for a number of African liberation movements including the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC) of South Africa, Frelimo when seeking to overthrow Portuguese rule in Mozambique, Zanla (and Robert Mugabe) in their struggle to unseat the white regime in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He also opposed the brutal regime of Idi Amin in Uganda. Following a border invasion by Amin in 1978, a 20,000-strong Tanzanian army along with rebel groups, invaded Uganda. It took the capital, Kampala, in 1979, restoring Uganda’s first President, Milton Obote, to power. The battle against Amin was expensive and placed a strain on government finances. There was considerable criticism within Tanzania that he had both overlooked domestic issues and had not paid proper attention to internal human rights abuses. Tanzania was a one party state — and while there was a strong democratic element in organization and a concern for consensus, this did not stop Nyerere using the Preventive Detention Act to imprison opponents. In part this may have been justified by the need to contain divisiveness, but there does appear to have been a disjuncture between his commitment to human rights on the world stage, and his actions at home. Retirement"
}
|
{
"content": "In 1985 Nyerere gave up the Presidency but remained as chair of the Party - Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM). He gradually withdrew from active politics, retiring to his farm in Butiama. In 1990 he relinquished his chairmanship of CCM but remained active on the world stage as Chair of the Intergovernmental South Centre. One of his last high profile actions was as the chief mediator in the Burundi conflict (in 1996). He died in a London hospital of leukaemia on October 14, 1999. Books and Articles by Julius Nyerere:Good Governance for Africa (1998)Marxism in Africa"
}
|
{
"content": "5 February 1967The Arusha DeclarationWritten: for Tanganyika African National Union by Julius Nyerere, 1967;Transcribed by: Ayanda Madyibi.The Declaration was discussed and then published in Swahili. This revised English Translation clarifies ambiguities which existed in the translation originally issued. The Arusha Declaration and TANU’s Policy on Socialism and Self-Reliance PART ONE The TANU Creed The policy of TANU is to build a socialist state. The principles of socialism are laid down in the TANU Constitution and they are as follows: WHEREAS TANU believes: (a) That all human beings are equal; (b) That every individual has a right to dignity and respect; (c) That every citizen is an integral part of the nation and has the right to take an equal part in Government at local, regional and national level; (d) That every citizen has the right to freedom of expression, of movement, of religious belief and of association within the context of the law; (e) That every individual has the right to receive from society protection of his life and of property held according to law; (f) That every individual has the right to receive a just return for his labour; (g) That all citizens together possess all the natural resources of the country in trust for their descendants; (h) That in order to ensure economic justice the state must have effective control over the principal means of production; and (i) That it is the responsibility of the state to intervene actively in the economic life of the nation so as to ensure the well-being of all citizens, and so as to prevent the exploitation of one person by another or one group by another, and so as to prevent the accumulation of wealth to an extent which is inconsistent with the existence of a classless society. NOW, THEREFORE, the principal aims and objects of TANU shall be as follows: (a) To consolidate and maintain the independence of this country and the freedom of its people; (b) To safeguard the inherent dignity of the individual in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) To ensure that this country shall be governed by a democratic socialist government of the people; (d) To co-operate with all political parties in Africa engaged in the liberation of all Africa; (e) To see that the Government mobilizes all the resources of this country towards the elimination of poverty, ignorance and disease; (f) To see that the Government actively assists in the formation and maintenance of co-operative organizations; (g) to see that wherever possible the Government itself directly participates in the economic development of this country; (h) To see that the Government gives equal opportunity to all men and women irrespective of race, religion or status; (i) To see that the Government eradicates all types of exploitation, intimidation, discrimination, bribery and corruption; (j) To see that the Government exercises effective control over the principal means of production and pursues policies which facilitate the way to collective ownership of the resources of this country; (k) To see that the Government co-operates with other states in Africa in bringing about African unity; (l) To see that Government works tirelessly towards world peace and security through the United Nations Organization. PART TWO The Policy of Socialism (a) Absence of Exploitation A truly. socialist state is one in which all people are workers and in which neither capitalism nor feudalism exists. It does not have two classes of people, a lower class composed of people who work for their living, and an upper class of people who live on the work of others. In a really socialist country no person exploits another; everyone who is physically able to work does so; every worker obtains a just return for the labour he performs; and the incomes derived from different types of work are not grossly divergent. In a socialist country, the only people who live on the work of others, and who have the right to be dependent upon their fellows, are small children, people who are too old to support themselves, the crippled, and those whom the state at any one time cannot provide with an opportunity to work for their living. Tanzania is a nation of peasants but is not yet a socialist society. It still contains elements of feudalism and capitalism--with their temptations. These feudalistic and capitalistic features of our society could spread and entrench themselves. (b) The Major Means of Production and Exchange are under the Control of the Peasants and Workers. To Build and maintain socialism it is essential that all the major means of production and exchange in the nation are controlled and owned by the peasants through the machinery of their Government and their co-operatives. Further, it is essential that the ruling Party should be a Party of peasants and workers. The major means of production and exchange are such things as: land; forests; minerals;water; oil and electricity; news media; communications; banks, insurance, import ;and export trade, wholesale trade ; iron and steel, machine tool, arms, motor-car, cement, fertilizer, and textile industries; and any big factory on which a large section of the people depend for their living, or which provides essential components of other industries; large plantations, and especially those which provide raw materials essential to important industries. Some of the instruments of production and exchange which have been listed here are already owned or controlled by the people’s Government of Tanzania. (c) The Existence of Democracy A state is not socialist simply because its means of production and exchange are controlled or owned by the government, either wholly or in large part. If a country to be socialist, it is essential that its government is chosen and led by the peasants and workers themsclvcs. If the minority governments of Rhodesia or South Africa controlled or owned the entire economies of these respective countries, the result would be a strengthening of oppression, not the building of socialism. True socialism cannot exist without democracy also existing in the society. (d) Socialism is a Belief "
}
|
{
"content": "Socialism is a way of life, and a socialist society cannot simply come into existence. A socialist society can only be built by those who believe in, and who themselves practice, the principles of socialism. A committed member of TANU will be a socialist, and his fellow socialist – that is, his fellow believers in this political and economic system – are all those in Africa or elsewhere in the world who fight for the rights of peasants and workers. The first duty of a TANU member, and especially of a TANU leader, is to accept these socialist principles, and to live his own life in accordance with them. In particular, a genuine TANU leader will not live off the sweat of another man, nor commit any feudalistic or capitalistic actions. The successful implementation of .socialist objectives depends very much up the leaders, because socialism is a belief in a particular system of living, and it is difficult for leaders to promote its growth if they do not themselves accept it. PART THREE The Policy of Self-Reliance We are at War TANU is involved in a war against poverty and oppression in our country; the struggle is aimed at moving the people of Tanzania (and the people of Africa as a whole) from a state of poverty to a State of prosperity. We have been oppressed a great deal, we have been exploited a great deal and we have been disregarded a great deal. It is our weakness that has led to our being oppressed, exploited and disregarded. Now we want a revolution – a revolution which brings an end to our weakness, so that we are never again exploited, oppressed, or humiliated. A Poor Man does not use Money as a Weapon But it is obvious that in the past we have chosen the wrong weapon for our struggle, because we chose money as our weapon. We are trying to overcome our economic weakness by using the weapons or the economically strong – weapons which in fact we do not possess. By our thoughts, words and actions it appears as if we have come to the conclusion that without money we cannot bring about the revolution we are aiming at. It is as if we have said, ‘Money is the basis of development. Without money there can be no development.’ That is what we believe at present. TANU leaders, and Government leaders and officials, all put great emphasis and dependence on money. The people’s leaders, and the people themselves, in TANU, NUTA, Parliament, UWT, the co-operatives, TAPA, and in other national institutions think, hope and pray for MONEY. It is as if we had all agreed to speak with one voice, saying, ‘If we get money we shall develop, without money we cannot develop. In brief, our Five-Year Development Plan aims at more food, more education, and better health; but the weapon we have put emphasis upon is money. It is as if we said, ‘In the next five years we want to have more food, more education, and better health, and in order to achieve these things we shall spend �250,000,000’. We think and speak as if the most important thing to depend upon is MONEY and anything else we intend to use in our struggle is of minor importance. When a member of Parliament says that there is a shortage of water in his constituency ; and he asks the Government how it intends to deal with the problem, he expects the Government to reply that it is planning to remove the shortage of water in his constituency – with MONEY. When another Member of Parliament asks what the Government is doing about the shortage of roads, schools or hospitals in his constituency, he also expects the Government to tell him that it has specific plans to build roads, schools and hospitals in his constituency – with MONEY. When a NUTA official asks the Government about its plans to deal with the low wages and poor housing of the workers, he expects the Government to inform him that the minimum wage will be increased and that better houses will be provided for the workers – WITH MONEY. When a TAPA official asks the Government what plans it has to give assistance to the many TAPA schools which do not get Government aid, he expects the Government to state that it is ready the following morning to give the required assistance – WITH MONEY. When an official of the co-operative movement mentions any problem facing the farmer, he expects to hear that the Government will solve the farmer’s problems – WITH MONEY in short, for every problem facing our nation, the solution that is in everybody’s mind is MONEY. Each year, each Ministry of Government makes its estimates of expenditure, i.e. the amount of money it will require in the coming year to meet recurrent and development expenses. Only one Minister and his Ministry make estimates of revenue. This is the Minister for Finance. Every Ministry puts forward very good development plans. When the Ministry presents its estimates, it believes that the money is there for the asking but that the Minister for Finance are being obstructive. And regularly each year the Minister of Finance has to tell his fellow Ministers that there is no money. And each year the Ministers complain about the Ministry of Finance when it trims down their estimates. Similarly, when Members of Parliament and other leaders demand that the Government should carry out a certain development, they believe that there is a lot of money to spend on such projects, but that the Government is the stumbling block. Yet such belief on the part of Ministries, Members of Parliament and other leaders does not alter the stark truth, which is that Government has no money. "
}
|
{
"content": "When it is said that Government has no money, what does this mean? It means that the people of Tanzania have insufficient money The people pay taxes out of the very little wealth they have; it is from these taxes that the Government meets its recurrent and development expenditure. When we call on the Government to spend more money on development projects, we are asking the Government to use more money. and if the Government does not have any more, the only way it can do this is to increase its revenue through extra taxation. If one calls on the Government to spend more, one is in effect calling on the Government to increase taxes. Calling on the Government to spend more without raising taxes is like demanding that the Government should perform miracles; it is equivalent to asking for more milk from a cow while insisting that the cow should not be milked again. But our refusal to admit the calling on the Government to spend more is the same as calling on the Government to raise taxes shows that we fully realize the difficulties of increasing taxes. We realize that the cow has no more milk – that is, that the people find it difficult to pay more taxes. We know that the cow would like to have more milk herself, so that her calves could drink it, or that she would like more milk which could be sold to provide more comfort for herself or her calves. But knowing all the things which could be done with more milk does not alter the fact that the cow has no more milk! WHAT OF EXTERNAL AID? One method we use to try and avoid a recognition of the need to increase taxes if we want to have more money for development, is to think in terms of getting the extra money from outside Tanzania. Such external finance falls into three main categories. (a) Gifts: This means that another government gives our Government a sum of money as a free gift for a particular development scheme. Sometimes it may be that an institution in another country gives our Government, or an institution in our country, financial help for development programmes. (b) Loans: The greater portion of financial help we expect to get from outside is not in the form of gifts or charity, but in the form of loans. A foreign government or a foreign institution, such as a bank, lends our Government money for the purposes of development. Such a loan has repayment conditions attached to it, covering such factors as the time period for which it is available and the rate of interest. (c) Private Investment: The third category of financial help is also greater than the first. This takes the form of investment in our country by individuals or companies from outside. The important condition which such private investors have in mind is that the enterprise into which they put their money should bring them profit and that our Government should permit them to repatriate these profits. They also prefer to invest in a country whose policies they agree with and which will safeguard their economic interests. These three are the main categories of external finance. And there is in Tanzania a fantastic amount of talk about getting money from outside. Our Government, and different groups of our leaders, never stop thinking about methods of getting finance from abroad. And if we get some money or even if we just get a promise of it, our newspapers, our radio, and our leaders, all advertise the fact in order that every person shall know that salvation is coming, or is on the way. If we receive a girt we announce it, if we receive a loan we announce it, if we get a new factory we announce it – and always loudly. In the same way, when we get a promise of a gift, a loan, or a new industry, we make an announcement of the promise. Even when we have merely started discussions with a foreign government or institution for a gift, a loan, or a new industry, we make an announcement – even though we do not know the outcome of the discussions. Why do we do all this? Because we want people to know that we have started discussions which will bring prosperity. DO NOT LET US DEPEND UPON MONEY FOR DEVELOPMENT It is stupid to rely on money as the major instrument of development when we know only too well that our country is poor. It is equally stupid, indeed it is even more stupid, for us to imagine that we shall rid ourselves of our poverty through foreign financial assistance rather than our own financial resources. It is stupid for two reasons. Firstly, we shall not get the money. It is true that there are countries which can, and which would like to, help us. But there is no country in the world which is prepared to give us gifts or loans, or establish industries, to the extent that we would be able to achieve all our development targets. There are many needy countries in the world. And even if all the prosperous nations were willing to help the needy countries, the assistance would still not suffice. But in any case the prosperous nations have not accepted a responsibility to fight world poverty. Even within their own borders poverty still exists, and the rich individuals do not willingly give money to the government to help their poor fellow citizens. "
}
|
{
"content": "It is only through taxation, which people have to pay whether they want to or not, that money can be extracted from the rich in order to help the masses. Even then there would not be enough money. However heavily we taxed the citizens of Tanzania and the aliens living here, the resulting revenue would not be enough to meet the costs of the development we want. And there is no World Government which can tax the prosperous nations in order to help the poor nations; nor if one did exist could it raise enough revenue to do all that is needed in the world. But in fact, such a World Government does not exist. Such money as the rich nations offer to the poor nations is given voluntarily, either through their own goodness, or for their own benefit. All this means that it is impossible for Tanzania to obtain from overseas enough money to develop our economy. GIFTS AND LOANS WILL ENDANGER OUR INDEPENDENCE Secondly, even if it were possible for us to get enough money for our needs from external sources, is this what we really want? Independence means self-reliance. Independence cannot be real if a nation depends upon gifts and loans from another for Its development. Even if there was a nation, or nations, prepared to give us all the money we need for our development, it would be improper for us to accept such assistance without asking ourselves how this would effect our independence and our very survival as a nation. Gifts which increase, or act as a catalyst, to our own efforts are valuable. Gifts which could have the effect of weakening or distorting our own efforts should not be accepted until we have asked ourselves a number of questions. The same applies to loans. It is true that loans are better than ‘free’ gifts. A loan is intended to increase our efforts or make those fruitful. One condition of a loan is that you show how you are going to repay it. This means you have to show that you intend to use the loan profitably and will therefore be able to repay it. But even loans have their limitations. You have to give consideration to the ability to repay. When we borrow money from other countries it is the Tanzanian who pays it back. And as we have already stated, Tanzania’s are poor people. To burden the people with big loans, the repayment of which will be beyond their means, is not to help them but to make them suffer. It is even worse when the loans they are asked to repay have not benefited the majority of the people but have only benefited a small minority. How about the enterprises of foreign investors ? It is true we need these enterprises. We have even passed an Act of Parliament protecting foreign investments in this country. Our aim is to make foreign investors feel that Tanzania is a good place in which to invest because investments would be safe and profitable, and the profits can be taken out of the country without difficulty. We expect to get money through this method. But we cannot get enough. And even if we were able to convince foreign investors and foreign firms to undertake all the projects and programmes of economic development that we need, is that what we actually want to happen ? Had we been able to attract investors from America and Europe to come and start all the industries and all the projects of economic development that we need in this country, could we do so without questioning ourselves? Could we agree to leave the economy of our country in the hands of foreigners who would take the profits back to their countries? Or supposing they did not insist upon taking their profits away, but decided to reinvest them in Tanzania; could we really accept this situation without asking ourselves what disadvantages our nation would suffer? Would this allow the socialism we have said it is our objective to build ? How can we depend upon gifts, loans, and investments from foreign countries and foreign companies without endangering our independence? The English people have a proverb which says, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’. How can we depend upon foreign governments and companies for the major part of our development without giving to those governments and countries a great part of our freedom to act as we please ? The truth is that we cannot. Let us repeat. We made a mistake in choosing money – something we do not have – to be the big instrument of our development. We are making a mistake to think that we shall get the money from other countries; first, because in fact we shall not be able to get sufficient money for our economic development; and secondly, because even if we could get all that we need, such dependence upon others would endanger our independence and our ability to choose our own political policies. WE HAVE PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON INDUSTRIES "
}
|
{
"content": "Because of our emphasis on money, we have made another big mistake. We have put too much emphasis on industries. Just as we have said , ‘Without money there can be no development’, we also seem to say, ‘Industries arc the basis of development, without industries there is no development’. This is true The day when we have lots of money we shall be able to say we are a developed country. We shall be able to say, When we began our development plans we did not have enough money and this situation made it difficult for us to develop as fast as we wanted. Today we are developed and we have enough money. That is to say, our money has been brought by development. Similarly, the day we become industrialized we shall be able to say we are developed. Development would have us to have industries. The mistake we are making is to think that development begins with industries. It is a mistake because we do not have the means to establish many modern industries in our country. We do not have either the necessary finances or the technical know-how. It is not enough to say that we shall borrow the finances and the technicians from other countries to come and start the industries. The answer to this is the same one we gave earlier, that we cannot get enough money and borrow enough technicians to start all the industries we need. And even if we could get the necessary assistance, dependence on it could interfere with our policy on socialism. The policy of inviting a chain of capitalists to come and establish industries in our country might succeed in giving us all the industries we need but it would also succeed in preventing the establishment of socialism unless we believe that without first building capitalism, we cannot build socialism. LET US PRAY AND HEED TO THE PEASANT Our emphasis on money and industries has made us concentrate on urban development. We recognize that we do not have enough money to bring the kind of development to each village which would benefit everybody. We also know that we cannot establish an industry in each village and through this means erect a rise in the real incomes of the people. For these reasons we spend most of our money in the urban areas and our industries are established in the towns. Yet the greater part of this money that we spend in the towns comes from loans. Whether it is use it to build schools, hospitals, houses or factories, etc., it still has to be repaid. But it is obvious that it cannot be repaid just out of money obtained from urban and industrial development. To repay the loans we have to use foreign currency which is obtained from the sale of our exports. But we do not now sell our industrial products in foreign markets, and indeed it is likely to be a long time before our industries produce for export. The main aim of our new industries is ‘import substitution’ – that is, to produce things which up to now we have had to import from foreign countries. It is therefore obvious that the foreign currency we shall use to pay back the loans used in the development Or the urban areas will not come from the towns or the industries. Where, then, shall we get it from? We shall get it from the villages and from agriculture. What does this mean? It means that the people who benefit directly from development which is brought about by borrowed money are not the ones who will repay the loans. The largest proportion of the loans will be spent in, or for, the urban areas, but the largest proportion of the repayment will be made through the efforts of the farmers. This fact should always be borne in mind, for there are various forms of exploitation. We must not forget that people who live in towns can possibly become the exploiters of those who live in the rural areas. All our big hospitals are in towns and they benefit only a small section of the people of Tanzania. Yet if we had built them with loans from outside Tanzania, it is the overseas sale of the peasants’ produce which provides the foreign exchanges for repayment. Those who do not get the benefit of the hospital thus carry the major responsibility for paying for them. Tarmac roads, too, are mostly found in towns and are of especial value to the motor-car owners. Yet if we have built those roads with loans, it is again the farmer who produces the goods which will pay for them. What is more, the foreign exchange with which the car was bought also came from the sale of the farmers’ produce. Again, electric lights, water pipes, hotels and other aspects of modern development are mostly found in towns. Most of them have been built with loans, and most of them do not benefit the farmer directly, although they will be paid for by the foreign exchange earned by the sale of his produce. We should always bear this in mind. Although when we talk of exploitation we usually think of capitalists, we should not forget that there are many fish in the sea. They eat each other. The large ones eat the small ones, and small ones eat those who are even smaller. There are two possible ways of dividing the people in our country. We can put the capitalists and feudalists on one side, and the farmers and workers on the other. But we can also divide the people into urban dwellers on one side and those who live in the rural areas on the other. If we are not careful we might get to the position where the real exploitation in Tanzania is that of the town dwellers exploiting the peasants. THE PEOPLE AND AGRICULTURE "
}
|
{
"content": "The development of a country is brought about by people, not by money. Money, and the wealth it represents, is the result and not the basis of development. The four prerequisites of development are different; they are (i) People; (ii) Land; (iii) Good Policies; (iv) Good Leadership. Our country has more than ten million people1 and is are; is more than 362,000 square miles. AGRICULTURE IS THE BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT A great part of Tanzania’s land is fertile and gets sufficient rain. Our country can produce various crops for home consumption and for export. We can produce food crops (which can be exported if we produce in large quantities) such as maize, rice, wheat, beans, groundnuts, etc. And we can produce such cash crops as sisal, cotton, coffee, tobacco, pyrethrum, tea, etc. Our land is also good for grazing cattle, goats, sheep, and for raising chickens, etc.; we can get plenty of fish from our rivers, lakes, and from the sea. All of our farmers are in areas which can produce two or three or even more of the food and cash crops enumerated above, and each farmer could increase his production so as to get more food or more money. And because the main aim of development is to get more food, and more money for our other needs our purpose must be to increase production of these agricultural crops. This is in fact the only road through which we can develop our country – in other words, only by increasing our production of these things can we get more food and more money for every Tanzanian. THE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT (a) Hard Work Everybody wants development; but not everybody understands and accepts the basic requirements for development. The biggest requirement is hard work. Let us go to the villages and talk to our people and see whether or not it is possible for them to work harder. In towns, for example, wage-earners normally work for seven and a half or eight hours a day, and for six or six and a half days a week. This is about 45 hours a week for the whole year, except for two or three weeks leave. In other words, a wage-earner works for 45 hours a week for 48 or 50 weeks of the year. In or a country like ours these are really quite short working hours. In other countries, even those which are more developed than we are, people work for more than 45 hours a week. It is not normal for a young country to start with such a short working week. The normal thing is to begin with long working hours and decrease them as the country becomes more and more prosperous. By starting with such short working hours and asking for even shorter hours, we are in fact imitating the more developed countries. And we shall regret this imitation. Nevertheless, wage earners do work for 45 hours per week and their annual vacation does not exceed four weeks. It would be appropriate to ask our farmers, especially the men, how many hours a week and how many weeks a year they work. Many do not even work for half as many hours as the wage-earner does. The truth is that in the villages the women work very hard. At times they work for 12 or 14 hours a day. They even work on Sundays and public holidays. Women who live in the villages work harder than anybody else in Tanzania. But the men who live in villages (and some of the women in towns) are on leave for half of their lire. The energies of the millions of men in the villages and thousands of women in the towns which are at present wasted in gossip, dancing and drinking, are a great treasure which could contribute more towards the development of our country than anything we could get from rich nations. We would be doing something very beneficial to our country if we went to the villages and told our people that they hold this treasure and that it is up to them to use it for their own benefit and the benefit of our whole nation . (b) Intelligence The second condition of development is the use of intelligence. Unintelligent hard work would not bring the same good results as the two combined. Using a big hoe instead of a small one; using a plow pulled by oxen instead of an ordinary hoe; the use of fertilizers; the use of insecticides; knowing the right crop for a particular season or soil; choosing good seeds for planting; knowing the right time for planting, weeding, etc.; all these things show the use of knowledge and intelligence. And all of them combine with hard work to produce more and better results. The money and time we spend on passing this knowledge to the peasants are better spent and bring more benefits to our country than the money and great amount of time we spend on other things which we call development. These facts are well known to all of us. The parts of our Five-Year Development Plan which are on target, or where the target has been exceeded, are those parts which depend solely upon the people’s own hard work. The production of cotton, coffee, cashew nuts, tobacco and pyrethrum has increased enormously for the past three years. But these are things which are produced by hard work and the good leadership of the people, not by the use of great amounts of money. Furthermore the people, through their own hard work and with a little help and leadership, have finished many development projects in the villages. They have built schools, dispensaries, community centers, and roads; they have dug wells, water channels, animal dips, small dams, and completed various other development projects. Had they waited for money, they would not now have the use of these things. HARD WORK IS THE ROOT OF DEVELOPMENT "
}
|
{
"content": "Some Plan projects which depend on money are going on well, but there are many which have stopped and others which might never be fulfilled because of lack of money. Yet still we talk about money and our search for money increases and takes nearly all our energies. We should not lessen our efforts to get the money we really need, but it would be more appropriate for us to spend time in the villages showing the people how to bring about development through their own efforts rather than going on so many long and expensive journeys abroad in search of development money. This is the real way to bring development to everybody in the country. None of this means that from now on we will not need money or that we will not start industries or embark upon development projects which require money. Furthermore, we are not saying that we will not accept, or even that we shall not look for, money from other countries for our development. This is not what we are saying. We will continue to use money; and each year we will use more money for the various development projects than we uscd the previous year because this will be one of the signs of our development. What we are saying, however, is that from now on we shall know what is the foundation and what is the fruit of development. Between money and people it is obvious that the people and their hard work are the foundation of development, and money is one of the fruits of that hard work. From now on we shall stand upright and walk forward on our feet rather than look at this problem upside down. industries will come and money will come but their foundation is the people and their hard work, especially in AGRICULTURE. This is the meaning of self-reliance. Our emphasis should therefore be on: (a) The Land and Agriculture (b) The People (c) The Policy of Socialism and Self-Reliance, and (d) Good Leadership. (a) The Land Because the economy of Tanzania depends and will continue to depend on agriculture and animal husbandry, Tanzanians can live well without depending on help from outside if they use their land properly. Land is the basis of human life and all Tanzanians should use it as a valuable investment for future development. Because the land belongs to the nation, the Government has to see to it that it is being used for the benefit of the whole nation and not for the benefit of one individual or just a few people. It is the responsibility of TANU to see that the country produces enough food and enough cash crops for export. It is the responsibility of the Government and the co-operative societies to see to it that our people get the necessary tools, training and leadership in modern methods of agriculture. (b) The People In order properly to implement the policy of self-reliance, the people have to be taught the meaning of self-reliance and its practice. They must become self-sufficient in food, serviceable clothes and good housing. In our country work should be something to be proud of, and laziness, drunkenness and idleness should be things to be ashamed of. And for the defense of our nation, it is necessary for us to be on guard against internal stooges who could be used by external enemies who aim to destroy us. The people should always be ready to defend their nation when they are called upon to do so. (c) Good Policies The principles of our policy of self-reliance go hand in hand with our policy of socialism. In order to prevent exploitation it is necessary for everybody to work and to live on his own labour. And in order to distribute the national wealth rairly, it is necessary for everybody to work to the maximum of his ability. Nobody should go and stay for a long time with his relative, doing no work, because in doing so he will be exploiting his relative. Likewise, nobody should be allowed to loiter in towns or villages without doing work which would enable him to be self-reliant without exploiting his relatives. TANU believes that everybody who loves his nation has a duty to serve it by co-operating with his fellows in building the country for the benefit of all the people of Tanzania. In order to maintain our independence and our pcople’s freedom we ought to be self-reliant in every possible way and avoid depending upon other countries for assistance. If every individual is self-reliant ten-house cell will be self-reliant; if all the cells are self-reliant the whole ward will be self-reliant; and if the wards are self-reliant the District will be self-reliant. If the Districts arc self-reliant, then the Region is self-reliant, and if the Regions are self-reliant, then the whole nation is self-reliant and this our aim. (d) Good Leadership TANU recognizes the urgency and importance of good leadership. But we have not yet produced systematic training for our leaders; it is necessary that TANU Headquarters should now prepare a programme of training for all leaders – from the national level to the ten-house cell level – so that every one of them understands our political and economic policies. Leaders must set a good example to the rest of the people in their lives and in all their activities. PART FOUR TANU Membership Since the Party was founded we have put great emphasis on getting as many members as possible. This was the right policy during the independence struggle. But now the National Executive feels that the time has come when we should put more emphasis on the beliefs of our Party and its policies of socialism. "
}
|
{
"content": "That part of the TANU Constitution which relates to the admission of a member should be adhered to, and if it is discovered that a man does not appear to accept the faith, the objects, and the rules and regulations of the Party, then he should not be accepted as a member. In particular, it should not be forgotten that TANU is a party of peasants and workers. PART FIVE The Arusha Resolution Therefore, the National Executive Committee, meeting in the Community Centre at Arusha from 26.1.67 to 29.1.67 resolves: (a) The Leadership 1. Every TANU and Government leader must be either a peasant or a worker, and should in no way be associated with the practices or capitalism or feudalism. 2. No TANU or Government leader should hold shares in any company. 3. No TAN U or Government leader should hold directorships in any privately owned enterprise. 4. No TANU or Government leader should receive two or more salaries. 5. No TANU or Government leader should own houses which he rents to others. 6. For the purposes of this Resolution the term ‘leader’ should comprise the following: Members of the TANU National Executive Committee; Ministers; Members of Parliament; senior officials of organizations affiliated to TANU; senior officers of par-statal organizations; all those appointed or elected under any clause of the TANU Constitution; councilors; and civil servants in the high and middle cadres. (In this context ‘leader’ means a man, or a man and his wife; a woman, or a woman and her husband.) (b) The Government and other Institutions 1. Congratulates the Government for the steps it has taken so far in the implementation of the policy of socialism 2. Calls upon the Government to take further steps in the implementation of our policy of socialism as described in Part Two of this document without waiting for a Commission on Socialism. 3. Calls upon the Government to put emphasis, when preparing its development plans, on the ability of this country to implement the plans rather than depending on foreign loans and grants as has been done in the current Five-Year Development Plan. The National Executive Committee also resolves that the Plan should be amended so as to make it fit in with the policy of self-reliance. 4. Calls upon the Government to take action designed to ensure that the incomes of workers in the private sector are not very different from the incomes of workers in the public sector. 5. Calls upon the Government to put great emphasis on actions which will raise the standard of living of the peasants, and the rural community. 6. Calls upon NUTA, the co-operatives, TAPA, UWT, TYL, and other Government institutions to take steps to implement the policy of socialism and self-reliance. (c) Membership Members should get thorough teaching on Party ideology so that they may understand it, and they should always be reminded of the importance of living up to its principles. Nyerere Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Marxism in AfricaGood Governance for AfricaBy Julius Nyerere13 October 1998Written: by Julius Nyerere, 1998;Transcribed by: Ayanda Madyibi.Governance in Africa, says the Chairman of the South Commission, must be improved for the continent's countries and people to build real freedom and real development. However, his definition of good governance is different from the one used by the rich countries in meting out aid to poor nations. A few years ago, I attended a meeting of the Global Coalition for Africa (GCA) in Harare, Zimbabwe. It was chaired by the former President of Botswana, Masire, and attended by a substantial number of African Heads of State. From outside Africa, it was attended by the two Co-Chairmen of the GCA, Robert MacNamara from the United States and Ian Pronk from the Netherlands, and a large number of officials from the donor community. At a certain point in the course of the discussion, the question of good governance in Africa came up. But it came up as a condition of giving aid to African countries. The manner of the discussion and the fact that this was an exchange between African Heads of State and officials from rich countries made me livid with anger. Notion of the 'Deserving Poor' It reminded me of the social history of Great Britain before the advent of the welfare state. The extremes of individual or family poverty within that country were dealt with through the philanthropy of rich persons to whom such human misery was unbearable. But their charity was given only to those they regarded as the 'deserving poor'. This, in practice, meant that it was given only to those people regarded by the philanthropist as having demonstrated an acceptance of the social and economic status quo - and for as long as they did so. As the world's powerful nations have not (as yet) accepted the principle of international welfare, they apply the same 'deserving poor' notion to the reality of poverty outside their own countries. 'Aid' and non-commercial credit are regarded not as springing from the principles of human rights or international solidarity, regardless of national borders, but as charity extended as a matter of altruism by richer governments to the less developed and very poor nations. However, the quantity of this 'official' charity being increasingly inadequate to meet the most obvious needs, one of the criteria for a nation being classified as among the world's 'deserving pooor' came to be having 'good governance' as defined by the donor community. And in practice that phrase meant and means those countries having multi-party systems of democracy, economies based on the principle of private ownership and of international free trade and a good record of human rights: again as defined by the industrialised market economy countries of the North. It was in this kind of context that we in Africa first heard about 'good governance'; and this was the manner in which it was brought up at the Harare meeting to which I have referred. It was this aid-related discussion of good governance, a matter between aid givers and aid seekers, and the arrogant and patronising manner in which it was raised by the aid givers, that discredited the whole subject in the eyes of many of us in Africa and other parts of the South. For used in this manner, good governance sounded like a tool for neo-colonialism. We have therefore tended to despise the concept even as, out of necessity, we try to qualify under it. I am very far from being alone in rejecting neo-colonialism regardless of the methods adopted to bring it about or to enforce it or to define it! Yet we cannot avoid the fact that a lot of our problems in Africa arise from bad governance. I believe that we need to improve governance everywhere in Africa in order to enable our people to build real freedom and real development for themselves and their countries. And I allowed myself to be persuaded to be a 'convenor' of this Conference on Governance in Africa because I believe that it provides an opportunity for us to understand more about our past political and economic policy mistakes and see how we can improve the management of our affairs as we grope towards the 21st century. Government vs Governance Governments bear the final responsibility for the state of the nation - its internal and external peace, and the well-being of its people. It is the distinction between the words 'governance' and 'government' which draws attention to the reality that, despite its enforcement agencies, government (in the sense of the executive authority) is not the sole determinant of whether those responsibilities are fulfilled. For there are always other forces within a country which, in practice, can help or hinder the effectiveness of a government, and which it therefore ignores at its peril. Government is an instrument of State. Today there is a call, emanating from the North, for the weakening of the State. In my view, Africa should ignore this call. Our States are so weak and anaemic already that it would almost amount to a crime to weaken them further. We have a duty to strengthen the African States in almost every aspect you can think of; one of the objectives of improving the governance of our countries is to strengthen the African State and thus enable it to serve the people of Africa better. One result of weakening the State can be observed in Somalia. There are many potential Somalias in Africa if we heed the Northern call to weaken the State. In any case, dieting and other slimming exercises are appropriate for the opulent who over-eat, but very inappropriate for the emaciated and starving! Incidentally, the world has changed indeed! The withering of the State used to be the ultimate objective of good Marxists. Today the weakening of the State is the immediate objective of free-marketeers! In advocating a strong State, I am not advocating an overburdened State, nor a State with a bloated bureaucracy. To advocate for a strong State is to "
}
|
{
"content": "advocate for a State which, among other things, has power to act on behalf of the people in accordance with their wishes. And in a market economy, with its law of the jungle, we need a State that has the capacity to intervene on behalf of the weak. No State is really strong unless its government has the full consent of at least the majority of its people; and it is difficult to envisage how that consent can be obtained outside democracy. So a call for a strong State is not a call for dictatorship either. Indeed all dictatorships are basically weak; because the means they apply in governance make them inherently unstable. The key to a government's effectiveness and its ability to lead the nation lies in a combination of three elements. First its closeness to its people, and its responsiveness to their needs and demands; in other words, democracy. Secondly, its ability to coordinate and bring into a democratic balance the many functional and often competing sectional institutions which groups of people have created to serve their particular interests. And thirdly, the efficiency of the institutions (official and unofficial) by means of which its decisions are made known and implemented throughout the country. Ingredients for Democracy It goes without saying that all of the institutions must be rooted in and appropriate to the society to which they are applied. The machinery through which a government stays close to the people and the people close to their government will differ according to the history, the demographic distribution, the traditional culture (or cultures), and the prevailing international political and economic environment in which it has to operate. For 'democracy' means much more than voting on the basis of adult suffrage every few years; it means (among other things) attitudes of toleration, and willingness to cooperate with others on terms of equality. An essential ingredient in democracy is that it is based on the equality of all the people within a nation's boundary, and that all the laws of the land apply to all adults without exception. The nation's constitution must provide methods by which the people can, without recourse to violence, control the government which emerges in accordance with it and even specify the means for its own amendment. In shorthand, the constitution itself must be based on the principles of the rule of law. It is inevitably the government which is responsible for upholding the role of law within the State. This, together with the making of laws, is one of the most important of its responsibilities to the people. But the government itself is subject to the constitution. All heads of state swear to honour and protect the constitution. this is as it should be; for the constitution is the supreme law of the land. We cannot respect ordinary laws of the State if we do not respect the constitution under which they were promulgated. A scrupulous respect for the constitution is the basis of the principle of the rule of law. This is an area where we need to be very careful. Presidents, prime ministers, and sometimes all members of a government, seek to amend a constitution in their own favour even when they come to office through, and because of, the provisions of a constitution which they have sworn to honour. Too often, for example, we have seen presidents seek to lengthen the number of terms they serve, despite the limit laid down in the constitution. This practice is wrong. It cheapens the constitution of the country concerned. If and when experience shows that the restriction laid down in the constitution is too restrictive and needs to be changed (which in my view should be very very rare), the change should not lengthen the term of the current office-holder, who is bound in honour to observe the restriction under which he or she was elected in the first place. And in any case, and more importantly, the first president to be elected under a restricted term of office must never change the constitution to lengthen that term. If he or she does it, it is difficult to see how subsequent presidents can honour the new restriction. Furthermore, if the provision of a limited term of office irks one president or prime minister, another provision of the constitution could irk another president or prime minister. We might then expect the constitution of the country to be changed after every general election. This is a point which in my view needs great emphasis. No Respect for the Consitution leads to No Basis for the Rule of Law. About the nature of government machinery - vitally important as that is to the maintenance (or establishment) of peace, justice, and the people's well-being - I need say little. A number of the previously circulated papers provide an excellent basis for serious consideration of this topic and its manifold implications for good governance. I would, however, like to emphasise one or two related points. Costs of Democracy All the institutions and processes of democracy and democratic administration cost a great deal of money to establish, to maintain, and to operate. That applies equally to official and spontaneous unofficial institutions - and to cooperation among them. Further, to be effective all such structures rely heavily upon the existence of a politically conscious civil society, which is active, organised and alert. Such a civil society will have a good understanding about the existence and functions of the different institutions, and about both their powers and the constitutional limits to their power. Dictators generally prefer an ignorant and passive or malleable population. It is easier to manipulate such a population and parade the result as Peoples' Participation. Yet Africa is at present poverty-stricken. I am the first to admit that a country does not have to be rich in order to be democratic. But a minimum amount of resources is needed in order to meet some minimum requirements of good governance. In Africa today, even the high echelons of the civil service receive salaries inadequate to keep a family for a month, and the minimum wage is "
}
|
{
"content": "derisory; and all salaries (especially of teachers and health workers) are frequently delayed. Nor have the people in general been the beneficiaries at any time of a well-organised education system directed at enlarging public understanding of and active participation in modern democratic institutions and processes. Poverty is an enemy of good governance, for persistent poverty is a destabiliser, especially if such poverty is shared in a grossly unequal manner, or is widely regarded as being unfairly distributed as the few who are relatively rich indulge in conspicuous consumption. Known or suspected corruption among the political leaders often makes the problem worse - and corruption throughout the society more difficult to overcome. Good wages or salaries will not stop bad people from being corrupt; but miserable wages and salaries are not conducive to rectitude. Political instability, real or imagined, can be a source, and is often used as an excuse, for bad governance. Corruption But to say this is very different from saying that because Africa is poor, Africans do not deserve good governance. This continent is not distinguished for its good governance of the peoples of Africa. But without good governance, we cannot eradicate poverty; for no corrupt government is interested in the eradication of poverty; on the contrary, and as we have seen in many parts of Africa and elsewhere, widespread corruption in high places breed poverty. Nor in saying this am I asking readers to accept the widespread belief that Africa has more corrupt, tyrannical, and power-hungry elites, than have other continents either now or historically. While avoiding the living and naming only a few of the dead, it is surely easy to see, in the past 75 years alone, our Mobutus, Iddi Amins, Bokassas, and military juntas, of Europe and elsewhere. In all European countries where the term of office is not limited by the constitution, my fellow politicians there pride themselves on how long or how short they remain in power. The trouble is that our Amins and Bokassas and Mobutus are Africans; but the Francos, Hitlers and Mussolinis are Spanish, Germans or Italians; and Africa played no role in putting them in power. Rather than conduct a post-mortem, we should try to help Africa and African countries to move forward from where we are now by addressing the central issue of building and strengthening the institutional framework of our continent and its countries. In doing so, to face the realities of Africa - all of them. Those internal, where our theoretically sovereign nations find their freedom to act is obstructed by the depth of our poverty and technological backwardness. And those realities external to us and beyond our control, in relation to which we are like a collection of pygmies in a world where giants stalk, and from where modern and constantly changing technology floods outwards over the world like an irresistible tide. The Ignored Truth Most countries of Africa are now once again 'coping' with the worst of their economic problems, and some are making well-based progress towards better living conditions for their people. We hear little about such difficult triumphs over adversity in the context of such things as international recessions and violent changes in primary commodity prices. Most of our countries are now living in a state of internal peace, and a peace which is deepening; we do not hear such peace unless it is broken. Despite the artificial and often unclear national borders of Africa, our States have very largely avoided violent conflict among themselves. Despite the histories of other continents, that accomplishment is ignored - even within Africa. And although this important success has been achieved largely through the work of the Organisation of African Unity (which African States themselves established), the media and the international community generally refer to the OAU with derision - if at all. Our children's expectation of life, and all that those statistics imply, has greatly improved - except where countries became the direct or indirect surrogates in Cold War conflicts, or were for other special reasons among the countries involved in prolonged civil strife. Africa does now have a core of highly educated and internationally recognised experts in different fields. Given the number of technicallyand professionally educated Africans in our countries at independence, and the paucity of secondary or tertiary educational institutions at that time, the number of high-calibre experts in Africa is now much larger than could reasonably have been expected after this lapse of time. Perhaps we are misusing them, but they are there now. At independence, some of our countries had no trained people at all. Finally, good or bad, the first generation of our leaders is fast being replaced by the second or even the third; most of these are better-educated, relatively free from the mental hang-overs of colonialism, and have had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and the successes of their predecessors. With the help of work done at different fora, I am confident that African States, individually and in cooperation with one another, can step by step and in an ordered fashion, move towards Good Governance. The OAU exists and assists in the maintenance or restoration of peace and cooperation within Africa, even if it too is severely weakened in action and capacity by its lack of resources. Some sub-regional organisations are making limited but useful contributions to stability, peace and economic progress in their respective areas. The machinery of government and of unofficial institutions within African States can facilitate or hinder movement towards greater intra-African cooperation. And in addition, the all-African institutions, as well as those working on a sub-regional basis, may well be able to benefit by it - provided the actors bear in mind the prospective importance of the role these intra-African institutions can play in strengthening us all. - Third World Network Features Marxism in Africa | Julius Nyerere"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1944Our WarFirst published: Il Combattente, January 1944, no. 5;Source: I Communisti e l’insurrezione, 1943-45, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 1973;Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2007.The fascist traitors, having put themselves at the service of the Germans, are emitting loud squeals for their sudden losses under the blows of the patriots. They speak of cowardly assassins, or horrible misdeeds, etc. What are the fascist hierarchs thinking? That they could betray the fatherland with impunity, place themselves openly in the service of the enemy without running any risk, without paying the price for their ignominious treason? Perhaps they thought they could make war against the Italians without their blood being spilled? What do all these wailings mean, these cries of indignation and fear on the part of the fascist hierarchs? Don’t they know that you go to war with two proverbial sacks, one for taking and one for giving?The Italian people have declared war on Germany, and never has a war been more just or more sacred. The Italian government, the only legally existing government, interpreting the aspirations and e will of the entire Italian people, gave a legal dressing to this popular declaration of war. From that moment it was the pressing duty of every Italian to fight with all his might and with all his means to chase the Germans from our soil. However, at that moment hordes of degenerate Italians, calling themselves republican-fascists, betraying as they have always betrayed the interests of the fatherland, aligned themselves with the Germans and are carrying out, at their service, the fight against the Italians, against the fatherland. There has never been a more infamous betrayal, a betrayal that so cries to heaven for revenge; one which has kindled the most violent reaction on the part of the healthy portion of the Italian people which, despite all they suffered from the fascist regime, was so generous after July 24 as to spare the lives of all the fascist hierarchs. At the time there was no vengeance, no reprisals, no killings. But after Italy’s declaration of war on Germany, from the moment this horde of traitors placed themselves at the service of the Germans, any consideration became a crime, any toleration a betrayal. From that moment the Italian patriots justly considered and treated as traitors to the fatherland the fascists in service to the Germans. War is war. If you don’t want to be killed don’t go to war. He who doesn’t want to die by lead shouldn’t betray the fatherland. But these traitors still dare to accuse the patriots of cruelty and cowardice. The entire Italian people know the infamous crimes perpetrated for twenty years by the fascists, know how their German bosses conducted themselves in conquered nations. We are in open war, declared against Nazism and fascism, but the Nazi and fascist canaille doesn’t treat the patriots and partisans like soldiers, like combatants, but make them suffer unheard of tortures and sufferings. And then they have the shamelessness to cry out and get indignant, to try to move public opinion when the hierarchs responsible for so many infamies fall to the lead of a few popular avengers. They fall fulminating, but they fall the way one does in war, without torture, without being the object of cruelty and suffering. Till now the partisans and the patriots have carried out the war like loyal and strong combatants, without abandoning themselves to the baseness and cruelty that only the fascist hyenas are capable of. But these people should know that if they continue to fail to treat the partisans and patriots as combatants, if they continue to arrest as hostages the family members of those who refuse to serve the Germans, if they continue to massacre innocent citizens in reprisal, well then, the patriots will know how to respond in the same way, to render blow for blow. The patriots, too, have fascist and German prisoners. The patriots, too, could begin to arrest family members of Messrs. Hierarchs and Messrs. Industrialists who collaborate with the Germans. Attention, Messrs Hierarchs and Messrs. Industrialists: don’t complain if your crimes and misdeeds were to fall upon your heads and those of your loved ones. Don’t cry out abut cowardice: you will have willed it. Pietro Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1948Italian People in New Phase of StruggleWritten: By Pietro Secchia, 1948;Source: For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy! Vol. 2, no. 12; June 15, 1948;Transcribed: David Adams, March 2022.The result of the April general election did not demoralise themass of the working people of Italy. If anything, the Maystrikes and discontent, which involved hundreds of thousandsof workers and peasants, demonstrated the strength andfighting spirit of the forward elements of the Italian people.The election struggle was but a phase, a very important phase,it is true, in the life of the working people. And those who hadcalculated on burying the Communist Party, the PopularDemocratic front and eight million Italians under the piles ofvoting papers, appear ludicrous indeed. The press of the Italianplutocracy and of American imperialism were somewhat rashin proclaiming victory. The battle which the Popular Frontwithstood during the election campaign, is being fought out inthe form of the democratic struggle and actions of the people.In this struggle for its vital demands and wider political andsocial aims, the working class is displaying its growingstrength.The experience of the struggle during the recent weeks andmonths is making it increasingly clear to millions of workingpeople that recovery cannot be brought about merely byparliamentary action and by struggles of an economiccharacter. The election campaign helped shatter certainillusions about quick and easy victories without struggle andcasualties—illusions of which the Party had warnedCommunists and all the democratic forces. The draconicrepressions and blackmail which the Government and rulingclasses applied to achieve their victory revealed to the broadmasses of Italy the true colours of bourgeois pseudo-democracy.It has been said that in the course of a conversation with hiscolleagues, the Minister of Police, Scelba, made this valuableadmission: “A ruling party which decides to hold an electionand then proves incapable of winning, is not a party but agathering of fools”. In this “Christian” fashion Scelba admittedthe colossal fraud practiced according to the Americanprescription.But constitutional and pacifist illusions have suffered yetanother blow. The police and military are being used in thegrowing struggle between labour and capital.With the intention of cashing in on their election “victory” thebig industrialists and landowners, supported by theGovernment, have launched an offensive against the workingpeople.This offensive aims to abolish or, at any rate, drastically tocurtail the gains won by the people since July 1943, to isolatethe working class, break working-class unity and split the tradeunions; it aims to secure additional profits at the expense of thepeople and to force them to bear the brunt of foreignimperialism. The recent strikes showed how vigorously theworking people are combating the offensive of reaction andhow they are preparing for the battle ahead.Growth of the Strike MovementAs enumeration of the more important strikes and actions thathave taken place since polling day, April 18, reveals on the onehand, the tense nature of the struggle and the militant spirit ofthe workers.April 25—Notwithstanding the attempt of the Government toprohibit all celebrations on the anniversary of the nationalliberation, partisans and the people held big demonstrations. InMilan, squads of police armoured cars and tanks failed todisperse the demonstrators. Twenty workers were wounded bythe police.April 30—Discontent and lockouts at the Falc works in Milan.May 1—For the first time since the overthrow of fascism. MayDay was a day of celebration and struggle and nation-widestoppage of work. Monster demonstrations were heldthroughout the country against the Government’s policy and insupport of trade union unity.May 9, 10—Demonstrations in Naples and Genoa, Questionsin the Senate, The General Confederation of Labour and thePopular Front insist on the right of asylum for 35 Greekpatriots who had arrived from the Argentine and whom Scelbawanted to hand over to Tsaldaris.May 10—General strike in Turin in protest against police raidson local Communist Party organisations.The beginning of the big agricultural labourers’ strike in theRome province, which lasted several days and ended incomplete victory.May 11—Strike of 50,000 agricultural labourers in MantuaProvince.May 12—Strike spreads to the Rovigo, Udine and Modenaprovinces embracing 120,000 agricultural labourers who struckwork because of the violation of agreements by landownersand Government, and who insisted on new collectiveagreements.May 16—2,000 workers in the Upper Flumendosa Basin(Sardinia) go on strike. Strike continued for more than afortnight.May 17—Gas workers win their demands. Strike of municipalemployees in Taranto.May 19—University students in Palermo protest againstincreased fees and occupy the university premises.May 20—Workers of the SIMA works in Iesi (Ancona) occupypremises to prevent dismantling equipment.May 21—After a 16-day strike the agricultural labourers ofPolesini win complete victory after smashing combined frontof the landlords.Thousands of spinners in Cremona province go on strike,demanding observance of labour agreement and payment ofdeferred earnings. Many mills occupied by women operatives.After several days, strike ends in complete victory.May 22—General protest strike declared in the provinces ofVenezia, Padua and Rovigo in reply to the police murder of astrikers in Trecenta.Agricultural labourers’ strike in Pisa province.General strike of agricultural labourers in Bologna. Strike lasts15 days.May 23—Students strike at Bari.May 24—Big demonstration in Milan in solidarity with thepeople of Greece.General strike in Modena province against police violation ofdemocratic liberties.May 25—General strike of auto-transport workers to win theirdemands and recognition of their factory committees.May 26—Strike of 25,000 agricultural labourers in Cremona.May 27—Discontent among 60,000 tobacco workers inSalento (Apulia). The factory committees decide to continuethe struggle until complete victory.May 28—Agricultural labourers in Milan area join the generalstrike which has been in progress for several days already inthe Mantua, Bologna, Reggio Emilia, and Cremona provincesand in different parts of Venezia. Total of 300,000 peasants onstrike.On the same day general protest strike is declared in Cosenzaprovince against police persecution and in defence ofdemocratic liberties.Workers declare a strike in the Ducati plant in Bazzano(Bologna).May 29—General strike in Placenza.May 30—Strike of marker gardeners and horticulturists inthe Naples province.May 31—Monster demonstration of building workers,unemployed and homeless in Bologna. Strikes of iron and steelworkers in Naples, electrical workers in the province of ReggioCalabria and agricultural workers in the province of Cagliari.The miners of Aragona (Sicily) occupy the pits in Enna andremain underground for four days with little food or water.June 1—Mineworkers’ strike in Carbonia (Sardinia).June 2—Big demonstrations in all cities celebrate theanniversary of the Republic. The demonstrations take the formof protests against the Government’s violation of theRepublican Constitution.Sharecroppers in Pesaro province demand more favourabledistribution of the harvest."
}
|
{
"content": "June 3—Mineworkers declare a general strike in protestagainst the closing down of industry miners in Valdarno,Ragusa, Foggia, Aragona (Sicily).Shipbuilding workers in Palermo who a month ago seizedshipyards declare a general strike in support of the iron andsteel workers.June 4—General strike in Bologna province in protestagainst the arrest of four trade union officials and againstpolice persecution.The above list refers only to the principal actions of Italysince election day, April 18.While these actions were, in the main, of an economiccharacter, they are important politically, from the point of viewof character, scale and duration, and because in the presentsituation, they take on an altogether new aspect.Against the Marshall PlanSpecial note should be made of the action taken by the Palermoshipbuilding workers. When the owners of the shipyarddecided to get rid of 78 workers, the other shipyard menprotested. The management of the shipyard walked out and theworkers took over and continued to run the yard. Thesignificance of this incident goes beyond the framework ofordinary class solidarity.Behind these events in the Palermo shipyard stood the MarshallPlan, threatening Italy’s industry and the lives of her people.In his message to Congress on December 20, last year, on theMarshall Plan legislation, Truman said that United Statesinterests would be safeguarded better if commercial shippingbuilt during the war was leased or sold to Marshall countries.Due to the steel shortage, the sale or leasing of these shipswould be related to the cutting of shipbuilding programmes inthe participating countries.This explains why the Palermo shipyard was closed down. Thesame thing applies to the unrest among mineworkers, the firstto feel the effects of the Marshall Plan. In Terni, Grosseto andSicily, they took action against the mines being closed. Like thePalermo shipyard men, the mine-workers are fighting not onlyfor bread and work, but also to save Italy’s baste industry andfor the country’s economic and political independence. Onceagain they show that the interests of the working class areidentical with the interests of the nation as a whole.The students’ strikes are a new and important factor.Undoubtedly they indicate a democratic and progressiveawakening of Italian students. The students are beginning toprotest at the clerical attacks against education and culture andsee for themselves that the Popular Democratic Front iscapable of breaking this reactionary onslaught.New Character of the StruggleThe open interference by the government and the armed forceson the side of the big industrialists and landowners arechanging the situation. The struggle of the working class istaking on a new and sharper character.All over the country the police are violating the people’s rights.The fierce attacks on strikers, the atrocities of the carabinieri,the arrests of strikers and trade union leaders are becoming theorder of the day.Carabinieri and police continually open fire on demonstrators.Today the police are doing the same job that the fascist mobsdid in 1921-22. In rural districts the and carabinieri are actingas strike-breakers. In the south, police are actually besiegingtowns and are conducting hundreds of unauthorised searchesand arrests.The police state which has been created by de Gasperi,supported by, Saragat’s “third force”, is turning the ItalianRepublic—which, according to the Constitution, should be“based on labour”—into a clerical republic based on machine-guns and Scelba’s police clubs.Because of the interference of the Government and the armedforces, each strike becomes a pitched battle and eachdemonstration a street fight. This year there is the danger thateven the fields may become battlefields.However, the big capitalists, landowners and the gentlemen ofthe Government are making a mistake if they think they cansmash the working class organisations with machine-guns.Violence is encountering the vigorous resistance of the masses.Every attack on the workers’ liberties, on their right to strikeand to organise, every violation of democratic liberties, willonly sharpen the struggle; economic strikes will develop intopolitical strikes, into the struggle for freedom and democracy.The task of the Communists is to strengthen and consolidatethe Popular Democratic Front which should become even morestrongly the leading force in the broad mass movement.For this it is necessary to maintain unity of action with theSocialist Party, the basis on which the Popular DemocraticFront can, be strengthened and extended. We must prevent thevanguard forces of the working class from becoming isolated.The struggle for radical reforms, for freedom, peace andindependence can be successful only if the broad masses of thepeople, and not just the vanguard, take part in this struggle. Thestrikes must not be restricted to isolated actions, not even tomass actions of a defensive and economic character. The taskof the Communist Party, of the trade unions and of the PopularDemocratic Front is to coordinate and lead these actions, and tocombine the struggle for day to day demands with the strugglefor structural and social reforms, to develop economic strikesinto political ones.Our task is to guide the struggle throughout the country,advance correct economic and political aims, take into accountthe new character of the struggle, so that the solidarity andalliance of the vanguard with the working people isstrengthened and ever broader sections of the population arebrought into the struggle.There must be no concessions to illusions, to the hopes of any“miracle” and to revolutionary phrase-mongering; noconcessions to those who advocate that “the worse things get,the better it will be for us”, but a resolute struggle against theopportunist influences of Social-Democracy. The entire partymust be mobilised to strengthen the unity and improve thework of the trade unions!Today not only the day to day interests of the workers,agricultural labourers and peasants but also freedom, peace andthe future of the Italian people are menaced.The working people of Italy, rallied around the PopularDemocratic Front, will be able to remove this threat and win abetter future for themselves. In this struggle for progress anddemocracy the Communists will remain in the forefront. Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1973The Masses Join in the StruggleSource: Il partito communista e la guerra di Liberazione. Feltrinelli, Milan, 1975;Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2008.On November 15 1943, in all of the metallurgical factories of Turin the first general strike under the German occupation occurred. There then followed others in Genoa, in Milan and many other locales during the winter and until the end of the war of independence, until the April insurrection.The Italian Resistance, unlike that of other countries, was characterized by the combining of the working masses with the military action of the partisans. The one supported and was presupposed by the development of the other. The class struggle was a key propelling element that gave impulse to the development of the fight for national liberation. In every era the national struggle has had a class character, and in every historical period there were determined men, determined social classes that represented the interests of the nation. There were men and political groups, also within the CLN (Committee for National Liberation) who had doubts about the possibility of successfully conducting the fight for national liberation if, at the same time, the parties of the workers favored and gave impulse to the developing of the class struggle, to the organization of strikes and to agitation in factories and fields. On the contrary, we Communists thought it was possible to give a just start and give a powerful impulse to the fight for national liberation only if at the same time there the defense of immediate, economic and social interests, as well as the more general ones of the working classes were brought to the forefront. We never contented ourselves with or underestimated the class struggle, (which in any case would have been impossible); this was expressed not only in the actions against the German occupier, but against the big Nazi-fascist collaborationist industrialists. This was the political line, the constant goal of the leadership of the PCI in upper Italy, profoundly persuaded as we were that the interests of the working class were not in contrast with those of the nation. All of the political strikes organized during the Resistance had economic demands as their point of departure and foundation. These were directed against the Nazi-fascists and the big collaborationist industrialists. The struggle for bread, for wages, against exploitation, in defense of dignity became at the same time national struggles for the chasing out of the German invader and the defeat of fascism. The workers were stimulated to action by the very conditions of their existence, but in its turn the thrust of the class struggle every day impelled and carried along an ever larger number of men to participate in the fight for liberation.Economic demands were placed to the forefront either to “cover” as far as possible the strikers from German-fascist reaction, or because they touched all strata of the workers, from those who were in the vanguard to those who were most backwards, less evolved and who weren’t interested in politics but wanted to defend their own right to live.But it would be a mistake to say that since economic demands were at the base of the agitation and propaganda for the strikes, the workers were led to act mainly because they were moved by economic interests. Most workers knew full well the risks they were running striking and sabotaging production. German and fascist terrorism made their weight felt and exerted their influence, even if in different amounts, throughout the period of the war of liberation. Wages, piece work, working hours, a greater amount of food and fuel were important things, but not to the point to drive the most advanced part of the workers to jeopardize their lives, to risk deportation in order to obtain an increase in their salary of a few liras or a slightly larger ration of awful olive oil. If they did this it was because they were moved not only by economic necessity but by idealist, social and national motives, by profound sentiments of hatred of fascism, of love of liberty and the conquest of independence; in many cases it was the aspiration for socialism, economic, political and idealist motives intermingled and were melded into one sole thrust in the same way that many streams debouch into one great river.The fact that the working class managed to exercise its leading function in the struggle for national liberation, taking as its starting point the defense of its interests and aspirations, demonstrates the way the national struggle was something profoundly real, inseparable from the very conditions of the workers’ existence. In defending its own positions and affirming itself, the working class, at the head of the laboring masses, affirmed the interests of the people and the entire nation. This gave the Italian Resistance not only a mighty verve, but a progressive imprint that characterized it and distinguished it in a more marked way than that of other countries. In Italy the Resistance was antifascist, and more than elsewhere fought against those groups of big capital that gave birth to fascism, supported its policies, and led the country to wars of aggression and catastrophe. And more than elsewhere the Resistance had a class character: there was at one and the same time a national and a social struggle both because of its content and because the working class was the main leading force. And it was from the working class, from the parties and men who represented it, that there came the most advanced watchwords, proposals, the most correct indications and solutions, those which best corresponded to the interests of the whole people and the nation. During the Resistance as well the laboring classes fought against the groups of finance capital, against big capital, fought to conquer liberty for all citizens, for the workers, the peasants, for the oppressed classes; fought to give birth to a new political and social regime that would realize profound structural reforms and a true, effective, new democracy. "
}
|
{
"content": "They fought to extirpate the roots of fascism, to liquidate the most iniquitous privileges of capital and large landowners. They were the representatives of the working class and laborers who, within the CLN, proposed and supported those programmatic demands that expressed profound popular aspirations; aspirations and objectives that, to be sure, didn’t correspond to the will and the designs of all the movements that more or less directly participated in the Resistance. Aspirations for a profound, radical economic and social renewal for which the workers, the most advanced sectors of the peasantry, of laborers, of progressive intellectuals fought that , to be sure, didn’t constitute the whole of Italian reality. Other classes, other parties acted in this situation within and outside the Resistance, and fought with varying and contrasting objectives for liberation solely through the work of the Anglo-Americans, aiming at the restoration of capitalism, the return to a regime of conservative democracy. From which came the discord in unity, and the continuous struggle within the CLN to have determined solutions and carry the movement as far forward as possible.Initially the CLN was indifferent to the strike front, failing to assume a position of active solidarity and support; such an attitude corresponded to a different conception of the action to be carried out in order to reinforce the Resistance and the war of liberation. The CLNAI indeed voted an order for a day of solidarity with the powerful movement pf the workers of Turin of November to December 1943, but did nothing to give concrete assistance to the movement itself and its development. The representatives of some of the parties within the CLN maintained that the strikes touched on and hurt certain interests, weakened national unity and alienated from the CLN certain capitalist forces which at that moment were disposed to assist the war of national liberation.Decisively rejecting these arguments, and maintaining that instead of braking we had the obligation to encourage the organization of the strikes , up to the general political strike in all of German-occupied Italy, up to an insurrectional strike. We openly criticized the position of certain members of the CLN: for us unity was not a holy arc, an altar before which the interests of the working class and laborers must be sacrificed. The CLN, if it really wanted to be the leading center of the war for national liberation had to be able not only to be in solidarity with, but had to also organize, assist, support, and strengthen to the highest degree the fight of the working class; had to be able to extend this struggle and other strata of the population participate in it...It was necessary that the CLN become a true combat organization, a truly leading organization of the war of national liberation. Without denying that here and there were strikes that were relatively spontaneous, the majority of the strikes and agitation were organized. Initially the Germans allowed the internal commissions to continue to exist; in this way they attempted to keep in their hands the means to control and put a brake on the working masses. The directive was given to all Communists and workers to hinder the internal commissions, to refuse to participate in them and not to participate in their elections. It was obvious that the Germans and the fascists, recognizing the internal commissions, held the workers participating in them responsible for all that occurred in the factories, the production rhythm, for the workers’ protests, for sabotage. The internal commissions were obliged to be true “collaborationist” organisms with the bosses and the Nazi-fascists. We proposed to the workers to instead name in every factory a secret agitation committee of a unitary character. The task of every agitation committee was to see to the needs and demands of the workers, to organize agitation, to lead strikes, and to strengthen the struggle against the collaborationist industrialists and the Germans and fascists.In the face of this just position, here and there we found opportunist attitudes which, under the mask of intransigent and extremist positions, claimed that the internal commissions should continue to exist because “’they represented a conquest of the working class.” We decisively rejected such positions; these were conquests which at a given moment had a progressive and revolutionary character, but susceptible in a different situation to being transformed into instruments of collaboration with the class enemy. In their overwhelming majority the workers understood the directive of the PCI. After just a few days the internal commissions, despite the enticements and threats of the Germans and fascists, resigned. In the main factories there arose secret agitation committees, unitary organisms which at that moment took as their principal task the organization of strikes and agitation against the German invaders and the fascist traitors.Our directive said that it was expected of Communists to promote the formation of these committees of clandestine agitation and to be their animators, to have them supported by all the workers so they be up to their tasks, which went from immediate, daily demands to the supreme political duty: the preparation of armed action for the driving out of the Germans, for the radical elimination of fascism. The strikes moved quickly, growing day by day until they reached the general strike in Upper Italy of March 8, 1944 and the days of national insurrection of April 18-25, 1945 ...We repeat: the strikes were not, except for a few exceptions, “spontaneous.” On the contrary, a great amount of energy was invested in organizing them. The fantasist picture put forth by those who didn’t know the period or participate in the struggle that it was the working class and the masses who from the base called for the continuous struggle at the front against a Communist leadership that intervened to brake, limit, and derail the struggle, does not correspond to reality. "
}
|
{
"content": "It is precisely the contrary that is true, which is obvious and natural. For us it was relatively easy to elaborate political and organizational directives for the preparation of strikes, attacked by the armed partisan groups of the GAP, for the development of the great mass struggle and larger scale partisan battles. Much more arduous and difficult were the tasks to which these directives applied, translated into action. The workers, and in the first place our comrades, who in the cities and the factories had to apply our directives, knew full well that every strike, even when it was victorious, was followed by arrests, deportations, and executions; they knew they would have to pay, and pay dearly. In this mass struggle, as in the conduct of the partisan guerrilla war, we certainly made mistakes; there were weaknesses, hesitations even among the most advanced parties in the democratic ranks who had always to confront opposing forces, even within the CLN, and with a complex, harsh and difficult reality. But we never found ourselves following the masses, we never committed the error of being a brake; we only took into account the difficulties the working masses would encounter in applying each of our directives for a bolder, broader and more advanced action. To be sure, we didn’t close our eyes to objections, to observations coming from the base; we weren’t indifferent to the cost, to losses. All of which led us to elaborate directives for actions that corresponded to their possibility of being realized, and not castles in the air. The impression shouldn’t be given that they were elaborated by incompetents or visionaries. The directives were always an incentive to do more, to move ever forward. Pietro Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1973The Politico-Military PreparationsSource: Cronistoria del 25 aprile 1945. Feltrinelli, Milan, 1973;Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2019.June 4, 1944 the Allies entered Rome, the first European capital liberated. June 6 they landed successfully in Normandy, the largest amphibious military action that had ever taken place.“The history of war has never known its like in its proportions, the vastness of conception and its magisterial execution.” (Winston Churchill)The Anglo-Americans had employed 11,000 fighter planes, 4,000 warships and thousands of smaller vessels, sent 20,000 parachutists behind enemy lines; during the 24 hours they landed 250,000 men and air-transported three divisions onto the French coast. The Second Front was finally a reality. June 23, in accordance with the Teheran Agreements, the Red Army began its sweeping offensive, smashing the German front in Finland and breaking through the center at Vitebsk and Gomel. Thirty German divisions were cut off in the Baltic countries. In July the press of events became precipitous. While the Anglo-American armies cleaned out Cherbourg on June 26 and liberated Caen July 9 and headed rapidly towards Paris, the Soviet army shattered Von Model’s lines, liberated Minsk July 5, Vilna the 13th and Grodno the 17th, bursting through to the western the borders of East Prussia. On July 20 the attempt on Hitler’s life laid bare to the world the end of another myth. The unity of the German leading groups and the tightness of the internal front were collapsing under the overwhelming weight of the defeat. A plot organized and led by a group of generals from headquarters, in attempting to physically liquidate the dictator, had sought to save what could still be saved. The hour so long awaited by the oppressed and martyred peoples of Europe, the hour of the concentric general offensive, from the east, the west, the north and the south, had arrived. A tremor of general revolt ran through the European resistance: the final battle had begun. From the very beginning of the partisan war the objective of national insurrection was present in the thoughts and the actions of the Italian anti-Fascist parties; and in particular the insurrection was the object of serious and constant preparation on the part of the Communist Party, the Action Party, and the Socialist Party. But the development of events imposed the necessity to accelerate its organization. All the anti-Fascist parties and movements were in agreement on the principle of the insurrection (this was the objective that the CLNAI as a whole put forth). But as the hour to set it in motion approached it was inevitable that the divergences among them would appear concerning what they considered indispensable to the success of the war of liberation but which that they nevertheless feared as a great danger; divergences that manifested themselves in the various commitments that the parties in the CLN made for preparing and organizing it. The insurrection, though it had a largely national and patriotic character, was no longer a purely military operation, but was above all a powerful fight of the popular masses, and for this very reason was a revolutionary movement: the conservative classes could not but be frightened. In the first months of the partisan struggle the Communists had already openly and clearly posed the problem of the national insurrection:“The political strike, the national insurrection cannot simply be simple watchwords for purposes of agitation: they must already be concrete tasks of organization and preparation. We must continue, expand, and make general the armed struggle for national liberation that has already begun; the partisan struggle in the first place but also the mass resistance to Fascist and Nazi orders as well as the protest movement of the masses against their oppressors and exploiters. Through this struggle the framework and the organisms of the insurrection will be created, training the masses for the final attack and the victorious insurrection.” (L'Unit�, Dec 24, 1943, Northern edition)This would be matured through the development of multifaceted partisan actions, workers struggles in the factories, and peasant movements in the countryside. With these concepts as our starting point, from the very first months of the partisan war we had precise directions for the creation of Agitation Committees in the factories and the objectives that the general political strike could pose.“In the insurrectional strike we must occupy the factories, not to barricade ourselves inside, but to make fortresses of them, points of support for armed insurrectional actions to be conducted outside against the enemy’s strongholds and his vital points.” (L'Unit�, Dec 24, 1943, Northern edition)Orders were given to the railway workers that on a given day it would be their duty to take over the most important railway centers by force; to stop enemy transport; and to put themselves at the disposition of the insurrectionary centers, in the same way that it would be the duty of the postal and telegraph workers to occupy the telegraph and telephone centers and the radio stations.It was a question of tasks that were serious and indispensable for the preparation of a victorious national insurrection which could not be improvised at the last minute; it was necessary to make prior arrangements for their realization.Insisting on these arguments from the first months of the partisan struggle was politically and militarily correct, but didn’t fail to also provoke some erroneous interpretations which had to be clarified in order to avoid grave consequences for the victorious development of the struggle. Especially in the course of the general strike of March 1944 there came to light an opinion quite widespread among the working masses and the population of the industrial centers, that is, that the strike had an insurrectional character and that the moment had come to finish off the Germans and the Fascists. In the popular quarters in particular the rumors were rampant that thousands of partisans had come down from the mountains and had occupied the city. "
}
|
{
"content": "The objective situation itself had created certain illusions and led to the circulating of the most sensational rumors (the workers understood full well that the essential problem wasn’t that of the improving of economic conditions, but rather that of driving out the Germans.. They understood that there could be no real solution to the problem of living conditions if we didn’t have done with the Nazi-Fascists), but in part there were also some defects in our press and the erroneous interpretation of some watchwords, for example the one that said , “Prepare for the national insurrection.”Having insisted on this in articles and directives on this theme, while at the same time preparing the general protest and political strike of March 1944, contributed to creating a certain confusion. “Prepare for the national insurrection” was here and there interpreted as an immediate watchword.After the March general strike they continued to hammer away at the need to “prepare the national insurrection in every detail” but at the same time stressed that they weren’t joking about insurrection (we wanted a victorious insurrection and not an adventure), that this could only be unleashed when the force of the Italian people would be ready to strike and bring down the enemy: “therefore the moment and the hour of the national insurrection will be chosen by the Italian people and not by the enemy.”The beginning of the battle for Europe announced that it was time to prepare the insurrection, not only on the political but also on the military plane. June 28, 1944 the General Command of the Corpo Volontari della liberta sent directive no. 5 to all the regional commands, having as its objective “the examination of the objectives” of the insurrection in the cities, the situation of effectives, and the elaboration of plans for insurrection and the systematic acts of sabotage. Such directives consisted in a series of instructions concerning the tasks that every partisan commando had the duty to propose in order to accurately know the topography of the city and the surrounding territory (factories, barracks, rail lines, seats of the enemy command, etc), the strength of the enemy and that of the patriots, their effective efficiency, and for the intensification of attacks and acts of sabotage against the enemy. Every peripheral command was assigned the task of elaborating a concrete insurrectional plan within the scope of its area of competency, which was to reflect the immediate objectives and actions for the systematic development of military action, up to and including the driving out of the enemy and the occupation of the zone by the patriotic formations. For their part the leaders of the Action Party insisted that; “It is very true, and will become ever more obvious, that our people, along with the other oppressed peoples, are leading an untiring insurrectionary struggle against those who have profited from this war, against those who enslaved them, against Nazism and Fascism. We are on the road to the anti-Hitlerite national insurrection of the European continent. And this is the problem: don’t allow the struggle to be derailed or falsified. Don’t allow the fruits of our victorious rescue to escape us.” (L'Italia Libera, no. 9,July 10, 1944)Even after the liberation of Rome and the opening of the Second Front there were those who thought, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats among them, that there was nothing else to do but to carry on with our every day routine. Their representatives within the CVL approved the directives, but in the underground press of their parties “insurrection” was never spoken of; the word was strictly avoided, and this wasn’t accidental. In issue no. 5 of Risorgimento Liberale of May 1944, on the eve of the liberation of Rome, while the partisan struggle raged in all the valleys, there was not one single word inciting to armed struggle, and in an article entitled “Look ahead” they limited themselves to saying, “ Today this alone must we urge our readers: Don’t be discouraged. Don’t believe the pessimists and the spreaders of doubt. Continue to put up with things and you will see that the future will be peaceful. We will again take up our trade.”Democrazia Cristiana, in issue no 2 as well as in the following issues, published in bold letters an article with the title: “What should the Christian Democrats do? In this hour of waiting every good Christian Democrat, convinced of the rightness of the cause, should not remain inert, but should carry out with prudent courage an active propaganda for our ideas, should make known our program, should distribute our leaflets and Democrazia.”Some called to continue to put up with things and to already look forward to the “taking up of trade,” others spoke of “this hour of waiting.” It was certainly not with the spirit of prudent courage that the insurrection could be prepared. The Communist party responded to all of them with open criticism, inviting them to greater combativeness and to put in practice the decisions that had been taken in common in the CLN."
}
|
{
"content": "“It isn’t enough to decide, to accept, to approve. It is necessary to execute; it is necessary to honor one’s own signature. It’s not enough to pronounce against a wait and see attitude and to allow the partisan formations that you say you direct and control to not show any sign of life through concrete actions against the German and the Fascists. We are above all speaking to our Liberal friends, our Christian Democratic friends. It’s not enough to say that one is against every form of pacification, of non-belligerency with the enemy and then allow that negotiations in this sense be begun with the Germans and the Fascists. It’s not enough to say that you are for the general strike, to sign to this effect – as the Socialist Party has done – a common appeal with our party and then allow organizations to refuse to march, as occurred in Florence and Padua. And it’s even worse to allow the Turin organization to issue during the strike, on its own initiative, a tract that ordered the return to work without party measures being taken” (La Nostra Lotta, March 5-6, 1944)These parties, though, were very busy preparing names and lists of the men who, when the liberation occurred, would be appointed to head prefectures, communes, and public administration. Instead of working to prepare the insurrection, they were intent on preparing the plan for afterwards, having in view putting the old structures of the state back in place; not, to be sure, democratic, but pre-Fascist. It never occurred to the authors of these plans that the organized and triumphant national insurrection would create on its own its own organs of power and order, and that these organs had to be the Committees of National Liberation. “The new order that will issue from the insurrection,” we wrote, “if it wants to be vital and not betray popular aspirations, can only be democratic in the widest meaning of the term, can only base itself on the same organs that have today already marshaled the national masses and lead them in the struggle, and which will tomorrow lead them to the insurrection and to victory. These organs are the Committees of National Liberation and the formations that belong to it; factory agitation committees, peasant committees, village committees, partisan formations. Preparing plans for after the insurrection, based on prefects, police supervisors, and mayors, along with carabinieri and policemen formed by twenty years of Fascism, means preparing the stifling of the insurrection itself in the more or less short term. Behind these plans are hiding the same anti-popular and reactionary forces who we have already found behind the attempts to stifle the partisan struggle and the protest struggles of the workers.” (La Nostra Lotta, March 5-6, 1944)With this as the starting point, obviously the varying viewpoints of the forces united within the CLN against the common enemy were divided by class interests that led them to act in different ways.Organizing the insurrection and the post-insurrectionary period by the truly democratic forces had the very precise meaning of reinforcing and strengthening all the organs that led the struggle against the Germans and the Fascists, transforming them into ever larger mass organisms, and converted the Committees of National Liberation the future organs of government. Pietro Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1958Women PartisansSource: Il Monterosa � sceso a Milano. G. Einaudi Editore, Turin, 1958;Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2009.As the war of liberation draws to its victorious conclusion, our chronicle would be incomplete if we were to remain silent about the functions carried out by a brigade that didn’t fight, but which nevertheless participated in all the combats, that was ever-present, worked everywhere without firing noisy shots, but whose action was even so as effective and necessary as that of the more perfected arms: we’re talking about the nursing, courier, and intelligence women partisans. The Resistance, however great might have been the courage of the men, would not have been possible without women: their functions were less flashy, but no less essential. There is no comparison between the participation of women in the fight for the Risorgimento and that for national liberation. It was then a matter, except for the insurrectional days in the cities and the popular revolts, of a few chosen ones, of shining examples, but not of mass phenomena. “A fundamental characteristic of the women in the Resistance, which was one of the most vital elements of the war of liberation, is precisely its collective, almost anonymous character; its having as protagonist not some exceptional beings, but the wide masses, belonging to the most varied strata of the population; its being born, not from the will of a few, but from the spontaneous initiative of the many.” [1]The first partisan couriers and spies were women. Initially they brought, along with assistance in the form of food and clothing, news from home and information on enemy movements. Quite quickly this spontaneous work became organized, and every detachment created its own couriers, which specialized in shuttling between the city centers and the command of the partisan units. The couriers constituted an important gear in the complex machinery of the partisan army. Without the secure liaison carried out by the couriers, directives would have remained a dead letter; assistance, orders, and information would not have arrived in the various zones. Their work was delicate, difficult, and almost always dangerous. Even when they didn’t cross the lines during combat under enemy fire, they had to pass through the steep slopes of mountains, in pouring rain with dangerous, cumbersome material, covering hundreds of kilometers on bicycle or truck, often on foot, in the rain and the fury of the wind. Crushed in trains, squeezed against the disconnected axis of a cattle car, the couriers passed long hours, often forced to pass a night in a station or in an open field, facing the dangers of bombardments or a German ambush.They often had to precede the fascists who were climbing behind them in order to warn our people in time, and many times they were involved in the subsequent roundup. After the combats, the retreating partisans were not always able to take those seriously wounded with them. If there were too wounded to hide, the couriers remained to watch them, to give them the necessary treatment, to seek medical help, to organize their recovery in a clinic. It often happened that after the battle the courier remained at her post in the occupied country in order to learn the enemy movements and to get the information to the partisan command. During the transfer marches they were in the vanguard: when the partisan unit arrived near a town the courier was the first to enter in order to find out if there were enemy forces and how many there were, and if it was possible for the partisan column to continue on. During the overnight and rest halts the couriers went about the town in search of food, of medicines, and of whatever else was needed. Indefatigable, constantly in motion day and night in order to establish a liaison, to seek information, to deliver an order, to transmit a directive; often in the tiny envelope that the courier hid in her breast was the salvation, the life or the death of hundreds of men.Many couriers fell in combat or in the course of their dangerous missions. Among others there was: Giuseppina Canna at Premosello August 29, 1944, Erminia Casinghino at Varallo April 24, 1945, Ermelinda Cerruti at Feriolo di Baveno November 19, 1944, Alda Genolle at Cavaglio d’Agnona April 4, 1945, Rosanna Re at Orio Mosso October 4, 1944, Ceonice Tommasetti at Fondotoce June 20, 1944, Fiorina Gottico at Varalla Pombia april 26, 1945, Veronica Ottone at Gravellona Toce November 1, 1944, Maria Mariotti May 16, 1944 at Novara, Anna Rossetti February 22, 1945, Maria Luisa Minardi, Maria Ubezio. The Valsesian and Ossolan formations had as their main collaborators and couriers: Teresa Mondini, attach� in the liaison service, the sisters Dina, Lina and Tersilia Mambrini of Borgosesia, the sisters Maria and Wanda Manfredi of Valduggia, the sisters Wanda and Emiluccia Cann of Borgosesia, the sisters Vitto, Jucci, and Rosetta Caula of Varallo Sesia (nurses as well as fighters); the sisters Caterina, Angela, and Maria Zanotti of Valduggia, Angelo Zenotti’s mamma, and that of Giacomino Barbaglia; Stellina Vecchio of the general command of the Garibaldi Brigades; the schoolteacher of Rimasco Biancaneve di Boleto, Mariuccia of Varallo Pombia, Bianca of Montrigione, Fina Rizzio and her daughter Maria of Praveri, Maria Rioloio of Lebbia, Mariuccia of Cellio and Liliana Fantini of Borgomasero, Maria Teresa of Maggiora, the daughters Rasario and mamma Comoli of Raschetto, Lina of Varallo Sessio and many others. [2] Particularly precious were the labors of Mariola and Marcella Balconi, indefatigable and courageous sanitary inspectors of the general command of the Garibaldi Brigades. "
}
|
{
"content": "The Garibaldian Command in the Belliese was essentially served by the labor of Lilliana Rosetti for liaison between the zone and regional commands; of Bianca Diodati, Vinca berti, Anna Cinanni and Alba Ferrari for liaison with the general command of the Garibaldi Brigades which had its seat in Milan; of Nella Zaninetti, Aurora Rossetti, Giovanna Vanucci, Terseina Comini, Rita Gallo, Nara Bertotti, Luisa Giacchini, Ughetta Bozzalla, Mercedes Fall, Bruna Giva, Marai lastella, Eva Anselmetti, Bettina Zanotti, Ortensia Nicol�, Maddalena Curtis, Amata Casale, Silvia Berbero, Scintilla Robbioli, Marai Teresa Curnic, Alba Bischetto, for the various units of the Fifth and Twelfth Divisions, Lina Antonietti ensured the liaison with the National Liberation Committee and the civilian authorities. We must also remember Catarina Negro, the old “aunt” of the partisans, who despite her advanced age spared nothing in order to in every way assist the patriots who found in her welcoming home rest, liaison, and deliveries. Alba Spina and Ergenite Gili, among the mist active and daring, first worked with the Biellesa partisan formations, and later passed over to the regional military command. It’s impossible to cite and recall all of their names. We needed the assistance of hundreds and hundreds of them, their initiative, their care and their courage. Medals were given to partisans and fighters, and to intriguers as well; but little or nothing was given to the women of the Resistance. But all those who know them will forever carry in their hearts the memory of what they were; to the couriers, to the nurses, to all the female partisans goes the imperishable affection of the Garibaldini. 1. A. Marchesini Gobetti, Donne piemontesi nella lotta di liberazione, Torino.2. I ask for pardon from the many brave and deserving ones whose names I’ve forgotten. Pietro Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1948The Vatican—Bulwark of ImperialismWritten: By Pietro Secchia, 1948;Source: For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy! Vol. 2, no. 4; February 15, 1948;Transcribed: David Adams, March 2022.In all capitalist countries the Vatican and the upper ranks of theclergy invariably sided with the conservative and reactionaryruling classes, with the big industrialists, landlords andbankers.The church leaders were always closely associated withfascism in the countries where the terrorist dictatorship offascism held sway and fully supported and abetted its policy.The Vatican supported Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany,Dolfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria; it supported the fascistaggression against the Spanish people and to this day activelysupports Franco’s terrorist regime.From the very birth of the fascist movement in Italy andthroughout the twenty years of its domination the Vaticanpreached obedience to fascism. The Pope hailed Mussolini as“the man, sent by Providence,” gave his blessing to theadventures and criminal aggression of fascism against othernations.It was only when the military defeat of fascism became anobvious and inevitable fact that the Vatican made shift tochange its policy, sought to forget its recent past, startedlooking around for new points of support and depicted itself asa champion of democracy.The double-dealing policy pursued by the top circles of financecapital during the Nazi occupation found apt disciples amongthe princes of the Church.Until the very last minute the Vatican tried to save fascismfrom defeat, and upon meeting with failure it did everythingpossible to secure a compromise peace.After the overthrow of fascism in Italy the Vatican set inmotion all levers, material and ecclesiastical, in an endeavourto save the monarchy.Today the entire activities of the Vatican are directed againstthe popular democratic forces, towards bolstering up the powerof the oligarchy of Italy’s industrialists and landlords, towardsthe realisation of the predatory plans of American imperialism.The Vatican is bitterly hostile to the countries of the newdemocracy and lends every support to any campaign andprovocation against the USSR.What is the explanation for the Vatican’s traditional anti-democratic and reactionary policy? It would be wrong toascribe it to purely ideological, religious and clerical reasons.The present-day Vatican is, above all, a big financial power.The Pope and the princes are closely linked with the leadingcapitalist circles throughout the world. Their ties with financecapital, with the banks and the great capitalist powers are soobvious that they cannot be concealed. Nor does the Vaticanmake any pretence at concealment.“Italia”, the weekly journal of the “Catholic Action”organisation, commenting on the expose of the Church tie-upwith industrial and finance companies, contained in ComradeTogliatti’s report to the Sixth Congress of the ItalianCommunist Party, said:“We fail to understand how the possession of economic wealthcan be taken to mean a conjugal union with capitalism? Insociety, where private property is juridically recognised it is theduty or a juridical body like the Church to possess property inorder to realise its aims. The Church and its organisations haveconcrete problems which are linked with their outer life andwhich call for a solution ...\"This is a frank confession by the hierarchy that the Vaticantoday represents a powerful financial force. Nor is it surprisingtherefore that this force is actively collaborating in thereactionary policy of big capital and, in particular, in carryingout the expansionist and aggressive policy of Americanimperialism.The Vatican is a huge International financial trust. It is well-nigh impossible to assess the exact extent of its investments,especially abroad, since both its real estate and stockholdingare in the names of trusted individuals. But Italian economistsand financial institutions have collated considerable, althoughfar from complete, data on this question. And the journal,“Herald of Economic Policy”, organ of the Institute of SocialProblems, recently published some of the data.In France the “French-Italian Bank for South America,” whichprior to the war had a capital of 50 million francs, is theproperty of the Vatican The bank’s board of directors is inParis. It has branches in Holland and is one of the bulwarks offascism in the Argentine. The director of the ”French ,ItalianBank” is the general governor, or more correctly speaking, theminister of finance of the Vatican-Baron Bernardino Nogarawho, in his day represented Mussolini in Berlin at thediscussions on the Dawes Plan.The Vatican holds 70 per cent of the capital in the SocieteTextiles du Nord and a large part of the capital in the BancaGalicienne Manant, not to mention one-third of the shares inthe Worms Bank, the leaders of which collaborated with theGermans. It is estimated that the Vatican has a capital of 200million pre-war francs in the various joint-stock companies inFrance.In Spain the Church which gives whole-hearted support tofascism, is itself, the biggest feudal-capitalist undertaking. TheJesuits possess vast real estate, especially in Barcelona,Madrid, Santandero and Seville. In Portugal they control theLisbon Banco Ultramarino which, in its turn, controlsconcessions and plantations in the Portuguese colonies ofMozambique and Angola.The Vatican’s biggest investments are in America, andespecially in the United States.In Buenos Aires the Vatican holds shares the tramway, electricpower, gas and water supply companies is a shareholder in the“Mihanovich” steamship company, which has the monopoly ofshipping on the River Plate.It controls the Spanish-American Bank, with headquarters inMadrid and branches in the Argentine, Brazil and Bolivia.In Bolivia the Vatican owns tin mines, which are exploited bythe Guggenheim Trust of New York. (This financial operationwas engineered in 1938 by Myron Taylor, at present Truman’srepresentative to the Vatican.)In Brazil the Jesuits control the main rubber and textileenterprises as well as several weaving and flour mills.In the United States the Vatican has shares or big capitalinvestments in Sinclair Oil, Anaconda Cooper and in a numberof other ore mining industries. In the US its interests are mainlyrepresented by the Morgan Bank.Of the religious orders connected with the Vatican, the Jesuitspossess vast estates and considerable joint stock capital.From their stronghold in Switzerland, the Jesuits exercisecontrol over the world’s largest electrical enterprises and overthe bank of the electrical industry. It has been estimated that thetotal Vatican joint stock capital in different countries amountsto 3,000 million pre-war lira or the equivalent of 300,000million post-war lira. But these figures are incomplete.While it is difficult to give an exact estimate of’ the capitalinvestments and the financial connections of the Vaticanabroad, its share and that of other church bodies in the generaljoint-stock capital in Italy has been estimated precisely enough.This is manifested in two forms: a.) control (possession of"
}
|
{
"content": "majority of shares), and b.) participation without control. At thepresent time the Vatican controls 30 Italian joint-stockcompanies with a nominal capital of 300 million pre-war lira.These companies include among others the biggest creditcompanies. By means of its capital investments the Vatican hasa finger, in practically every Italian industry, particularly in theelectrical, chemical, “metallurgical, textile” and food industriesand also in transport. land and insurance societies. Vaticanholdings in the second group of enterprises are estimated atmore than 250 million pre-war lira.To a considerable extent the economic life of Italy is controlledby the Vatican through some 40 Catholicbanks and a hundred “popular banks”, whose total deposits onDecember 31, 1946 exceeded 400,000 million lira, orconsiderably more than half of the total national savings.Moreover, as is the case abroad, the Vatican and religiousbodies dispose of vast estates in Italy. The value of immovableproperty in Italy is estimated at 380,000 million lira.The financial might of the Vatican and its links with the world’sbiggest companies is proof positive of its connections with thecapitalist world. These concrete worldly interests explain thestubborn resistance of the Catholic church to reforms and toany transformation of present-day capitalist society. They arealso the real motive of the struggle waged by the Vaticanagainst democracy and against the advance of the popularforces.The Vatican masks its struggle against democracy with theslogan of anti-Communism and the “struggle for peace”. Butno amount of camouflage can conceal the real aim of thisstruggle, the desire to smash the democratic forces, defeat thepopular movement, facilitate the return to power of thereactionary, fascist regimes, accelerate the establishment inEurope of a bloc of American satellites, who would be willingtoots for provocations against the Soviet Union and the newdemocracies.Commenting on the danger of a new world war the “FranceCatholique” magazine stated:“To avoid this conflict it is necessary, above all, to transformEurope into an economic unit and to bring it into aninternational economic organisation.”The Vatican and the entire church hierarchy gave wholeheartedsupport to the “Marshall Plan” and to similar US imperialistschemes for enslaving Europe and provoking war.Ordinary Catholics do not, and cannot, support this policy ofthe princes of the Catholic church who are hand in glove withbig capital and the ruling clique of American imperialists.Exploited and oppressed by capitalism, the Catholic workers,who bore the brunt of sacrifices and hardships of war, and whowere active fighters for freedom and national independence,are conscious of the need to unite with all working people inthe united front of peace and democracy. Today, more than everbefore, they are conscious that they must struggle for liberationfrom capitalist bondage and exploitation. They know that theonly way they can prevent a return of the fascist past, is byfighting for the new socialist society. Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Pietro Secchia 1944 The Garibaldini Pass to the OffensiveFirst published: La Nostra Lotta, June 1944;Source: I Communisti e l’insurrezione, 1943-45, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 1973;Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2007.The Garibaldini were the Italian partisans affiliated with the Italian Communist Party.The liberation of Rome and the Allied landing in France signal the beginning of the decisive phase of the war. The hour of the end for Nazi-fascism has sounded.To the great offensives of the Soviet and Allied armies must correspond the daring and impetuous offensive of the Italian people. It is highly probable that in the coming weeks other regions of Italy will be the object of military operations of great importance.It is necessary that every Communist be at the head of the struggle. It is necessary that every Communist be ready to cope with the developments of the situation . It is necessary that the Communist organizations know how to resolve – even is they are temporarily cut off from the party center – the problems that the rapid development of such a situation pose and will pose. One sole objective must guide us: passing to the offensive in order to prepare within the struggle the conditions for the national popular insurrection.This means that we want and must develop and activate as much as possible the partisan front; that we must organize large scale systematic sabotage of production, the interrupting of lines of communication, the distribution of the means of transport, of arms deposits, of supplies and fuels for the enemy.This means that agitation, demonstrations, strikes against hunger and deportations must be multiplied and follow one on another in a growing and ever-stronger wave, must uninterruptedly explode, must assume an ever more violent and mass character, must unite in a great general movement so as to lead to the popular insurrection.What counts now is action. It’s not a matter of writing and distributing tracts, of hoisting flags, of holding meetings and making propaganda. Agitation is useful and necessary insofar as it serves to mobilize the Italian people for the insurrection; agitation is useful insofar as it serves to bring ever larger masses to the fight for the liberation of our country and for victory.What counts today is action. It is absolutely necessary that every comrade realize that the essential task today of every Communist and patriot is that of, using all means, attacking the Germans; to attack him from the rear, to break up the railroad lines, to destroy machinery, to sidetrack the trains that transport German troops and material, to delay their arrival. Today the essential task of Communists and patriots is that of impeding the transport of the Nazi-fascist enemy’s troops and arms, of destroying his paths of communication, to blow up his depots. It’s a matter of systematically, at an increasing rhythm, the sabotaging of the enemy’s production. Blow upon blow must rain down from everywhere on the nazi-fascist enemy, to make life impossible for him in our country.These, today, are our tasks if we want to hasten the hour of the liberation of our fatherland, the hour of victory. These are the tasks to be discussed and resolved these days in our cells if we Communists truly want to be at the head of the Italian people in struggle. No, we can’t limit ourselves to applauding and demonstrating for the liberation of Rome, to rejoice at the opening of the second front. The moment has not yet come for demonstrations of jubilation: now is the hour of struggle, the hour of action. We must facilitate, with all our force, with all our means the military actions of the Allies who have come to liberate our territory from the invader. It is our duty, our task to do all we can to see to it that the Allies succeed. These today are the tasks of the Communists, of patriots, and they are truly new tasks.These new tasks, which don’t allow for delay, can only be confronted with a combatant’s spirit, with revolutionary enthusiasm. It is necessary that all comrades, those at the base as well as in positions of responsibility, break with the traditional, bureaucratic, routinier work of every day. It is necessary that all of us feel that there is something new in the world, that the decisive hour has come. The liberation of Rome and the realization of the second front must also signify a turn in our work, must also mean for us the deployment of all our energy. We can’t continue in the humdrum of daily activity, of daily meetings, of the usual weekly cell meetings, of union discussions, of the distribution of newspapers, of the collecting of quotas, of chatting with comrades at work, of eight hours at the factory every day from Monday to Saturday, one week after the other, as if there was nothing new under the sun. No, working in this spirit means working with a wait-and-see spirit, even if you’re against waiting-and -seeing; means doing nothing differently today from what was done yesterday; means ‘waiting’ for the Allies to arrive and liberate us; means abandoning oneself to spontaneity, waiting for things to happen on their own. Today the duty of every Communist and patriot is to abandon the factory, the office, the fields; to take up the gun against the German invader. Today it is the duty of Communists and Italians to plan and organize the interruption of the railway and communication lines of the enemy, to impede, hinder, delay its transport of arms and troops. Today it is the duty of every Communist and every Italian to organize and carry out in the factories, the construction sites and the offices the sabotage of production for the enemy.Every day, every hour, in every factory, in every village, in every neighborhood of the city, in every path of communication something must be done that damages the Nazi-fascist enemy. Today it is the duty of every Communist to work with the sprit that animates the revolutionary combatant, who completely gives his all, without limits, for the reaching of this objective."
}
|
{
"content": "Above familiar concerns, above work issues, above personal demands, today the duty is to the fight for victory, the fight to destroy Nazi-fascism as quickly as possible. Not everyone can leave for the front, but the entire national territory should be considered one great front. Every Communist must feel the necessity of the task that he has to perform; whatever task the party has assigned him he should consider it necessary to contribute to defeating the enemy. We must work with the same enthusiasm, with the same spirit of sacrifice, with the same contempt for danger, with complete dedication, deploying all our energy, as if we were at the front. If there are comrades who sleep eight hours a day, they’re sleeping too much; if there are comrades who work punctually and hard eight hours a day behind their machines, who work and produce well for war production, these comrades are not Communists, they aren’t fulfilling their duties; if there are comrades who today find too much time to rest and amuse themselves, these are not soldiers, they aren’t combatants.Those comrades who work in a way as if today were yesterday are not combatants; who pass their lives as if they were in time of “peace,” and not on the eve of the national popular insurrection; who pass their lives at the workshop, the evening with the family, chatting in cafes with friends and then to bed with the wife.Today the supreme duty of a Communist, of an Italian is that of being a combatant at the front and behind the lines, in front of and behind the enemy, in the mountains and in the cities, in the trenches and in the factories. It is absolutely necessary that every day at day’s end every comrade be able to see that he has worked another eight hours to earn his daily bread and enrich his exploiters, but can also say: “ Today I did something to destroy Nazi-fascism, to conquer liberty. Today I dealt a blow to my mortal enemy.”And so work hard, with enthusiasm, feverishly, without bureaucratic delays. Above all have present the tasks which we must today confront. In the current situation it is the task of our organisms to reduce bureaucracy, paperwork, archives, collections of documents to a minimum.Become accustomed to working quickly and resolving problems promptly and not get lost in long discussions. This is not the moment for great discussions, meetings, congresses. Arriving hurriedly at the right moment with a tract, an appeal, a directive, also written rapidly, is better than arriving late with a carefully styled document. Derailing a train of German men and material tonight is worth more than passing the night making up grand projects, fantastic plans to be realized in who knows what future. In particular the most qualified comrades must seek to be ready in the same way as is a combatant before the attack. They must seek to relieve themselves of all ties that are a weight and an obstacle to their action. They must organize their work in such a way as not to be tied to their technical and organizational posts. The must be in a position to be able to leave their cities from one moment to another, to go from one locality to another where their work is necessary; they must be in a position to be able to pass from political work to military work, from agitational and propaganda work to that of commanding a detachment or vice versa, according to the circumstances. It is only by working with a truly practical and revolutionary spirit, only with the dedication of all our forces, of all our physical and moral energies, that we will be able to acquit our tasks of today, that we can maintain the offensive, that we can lead the national insurrection. Pietro Secchia Archive"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyYou Had Better Read ThisIt Tells You How the War Is Goingto Affect Your Pocketbook!(December 1941)From Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 51, 22 December 1941, pp. 1 & 4.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).If you own an airplane factory or some other factory producing materials needed for the prosecution of war, you may make a lot of money. If you own a lot of stocks and bonds, you may also make a lot of money. If you own some choice real estate, you may find it going up in value. In short, if you are a capitalist you may find that war CAN be profitable to some. But you must be a big capitalist. The small capitalists – the little business men and farmers – probably are going to be wiped out. Since, however, the vast majority of the population of these United States are workers, people who work for a living, let us examine, on the basis of past experience, what has been happening in other countries and what seems most likely to happen here: how your pocketbook will be affected by the entry of America into World War II.*Guns, Not Butter“Guns – not butter.” This is the slogan that Hitler used to launch his so-called four-year plan in 1936. This was, in reality, his declaration of war to the world – a declaration that German imperialism was dissatisfied with its secondary position and was going to demand its “real place in the sun.” For the German workers, who already had had their trade unions smashed, their democratic rights violated, their leaders slaughtered and tortured in the concentration camps, there now began a period of unimaginable slavery. Hours of work were lengthened to at least 10 hours a day, and in many armament industries to 14 hours a day.Wages remained stationary while prices began to creep up – not very much because the totalitarian government controlled them, but still enough in the case of essential products, like potatoes, to hurt. Then came the taxes and the “voluntary” contributions. On top of these came the ration cards, which meant one egg a week, when you were lucky, a half pound of meat and similar starvation rations. To make matters worse, most of the commodities that could be obtained were more and more of the “ersatz” variety – miserable substitutes that didn’t even take away the pangs of hunger or protect the body or the home against cold winters. Labor ConscriptedMalnutrition, disease, poverty became the daily lot of the German worker. Finally, the insatiable war machine demanded not only cannon fodder in various parts of Europe and Africa, but it demanded workers. Even Hitler, powerful as he is, cannot ignore the fact that without workers nothing can be produced – not even armaments. So the German workers were conscripted to work in any part of the country. And not only the German workers, but a recent estimate shows that at least 2,000,000 foreign workers, French, Spanish, Italian, etc., have been conscripted to work in German war factories. Forced labor is slavery, as the German workers and the workers of the countries conquered by Germany have discovered.But war is still profitable for some. While the German workers have been starving, they have been watching the big bosses, the Nazi bureaucrats, government officials and leading manufacturers still getting fat on rich foods while the workers have been living in homes calculated to give pneumonia even to the strongest, they have had to watch their leaders living in palaces and thriving in relative opulence.Pretty much the same story has been true in England. There the workers not only had to shiver in the subways during the air raids while the big bosses retired to well constructed bomb shelters that took on the appearance of night clubs, but they also had to suffer the indignity of working and slaving and starving while the rich lived off the fat of the land. Our returning travelers from England, the congressmen and college professors, love to expatiate on the new spirit of “equality” in England, of how everybody is made equal by the ration card and huge taxes, but they always forget to mention or slide over in silence the scandalous fact that if you have a large pocketbook, you can still get all the good things in life. For there still flourishes the “black market,” the illegal paradise of the speculator and profiteer, where, for a price, you can buy as many chickens as you want. Very Low Living StandardsIt has been estimated – and these are very, very conservative estimates – that the standard of living of the average German worker today is well below what it was in 1932 at the worst point of the depression. In England, it has been estimated that the standard of living of the average British worker has declined by one-third since the outbreak of the war. The chances are it is nearer one-half. This is the picture of every country at war. It is as true of Japan, or Russia as it is of Germany and England. Will it also be true of the United States?Judging by what has happened under the defense program and by what the new Victory program calls for, there can be no doubt that the answer is “yes.” That is, as long as the industrialists and bankers are allowed to run the war, it is bound to be the same in this country as in every other country. The masses will suffer – a few will profit. After all, if everybody suffered from war, what sense would there be in having war? It is the fact that some profit and others hope to profit that makes war possible. Assuming, then, that the dollar-a-year men remain in charge of our war effort, that the brass hats keep making their incredibly stupid mistakes, let’s see how the picture shapes up."
}
|
{
"content": "First of all, this is going to be a long war. That we have already been warned about. Plans are now under way to build up an army of 7,500,000 men. It may easily reach 10,000,000 before the war is over. Fifty per cent of our production will go to the war. It may easily be 60 or 70 per cent before the war is over. All men between the ages of 18 and 64 are to be registered. This may easily be extended to include women. Shortages have already appeared in such key raw materials as rubber, tin, gasoline, etc. These will be rationed. It may be and will be extended to others. Prices in the vital wholesale markets have gone up more than 60 per cent since the beginning of the war. They will go up further. Cost of Living Jumps Here, Too!The cost of living has gone up, according to government estimates, 11 per cent since the outbreak of the war. It will go up much, much further. There is an acute shortage of labor, particularly semi-skilled and skilled labor for the war industries. Other countries have drafted labor. The probability is that along with the outlawing of strikes there will come the conscription of labor in the U.S. – in spite of the fact that conscripting labor to work for the gain of a private employer is outlawed by the 13th amendment to the Constitution as slavery.Goods are being standardized. This will continue and be extended to everything – that is, to everything except war materials. People are being urged to buy defense bonds and stamps. Soon they will be forced to buy them, as is already happening in some cases, “in the best interests of the workers,” simply deducting a certain sum from each worker’s pay check to go for this or some other type of forced savings. Substitutes are being introduced. This will be extended.This picture is hot that of an alarmist. It is a very sober picture based on historical fact. The picture could be extended almost indefinitely to cover every last detail. The broad outlines are quite clear for anyone with eyes to see. But while the workers and masses are suffering a steadily declining standard of living, the same picture of the rich profiting by the war as exists in other countries will be duplicated here, only more so. Profits have gone up tremendously. They will still go up. Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 26.2.2013"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageT.N. VanceThe Economic Outlook for 1954The Administration’s Anti-Recession Program(March 1954)From The New International, Vol. XX No. 1, January–February 1954, pp. 8–10.Transcribed by Ted Crawford.Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).The economic outlook for 1954 has now become the dominant question, governing all political forecasts. While it is still eight months to the Congressional elections in November, there can be little doubt that the Republican politicians are worried lest an unfavorable economic outlook accentuate the normal loss of Congressional seats that the party in power must usually expect a non-presidential election year. The result could easily be that the Democrats will capture a solid majority in both Houses of Congress.Certainly, if unemployment in November exceeds present levels – barring an all-out hot war – the Republicans will suffer a resounding defeat. Just what the present (March) level of unemployment is – the month Eisenhower stated would be decisive in determining whether the Government would intervene in the economy – is impossible to say. The January figure exceeded 3,000,000. The February figure should have been released on March 1st. Publication has been postponed until March 15th. Why? Ostensibly to permit checking of the new sample used to estimate the amount of unemployment. It might also be that the February figure shows unemployment to have risen sharply. Politically, it may be more convenient to announce a February unemployment figure of 4,000,000 or thereabouts at the end of March, while (the administration most hope) advance indications show a decline in unemployment for March.The Economic Report of the President to Congress, dated January 28, 1954, concludes its evaluation of the current economic outlook by stating: “Our economy today is highly prosperous, and enjoys great basic strength. The minor readjustment underway since mid-1953 is likely soon to come to a close, especially if the recommendations of the Administration are adopted.” (Italics mine – T.N.V.) Actually, the “minor readjustment” is a full-fledged recession, already amounting to a decline of approximately 10 per cent since it began in the second quarter of 1953. The overwhelming majority of economists attending the annual meetings of the American Economics Association and the American Statistical Association at the end of December is clearly of the opinion that “The United States economy already is in a downturn. It faces the prospect of an ‘orthodox recession’ in 1954 with total output down $10,000,000,000 to $18,000,000,000 from 1953’s extraordinarily high levels.” (The New York Times, Dec. 29, 1953.)While the American economists do not share the opinion of Colin Clark, leading Australian economist, that the economy is heading for a severe depression, they do appear to expect the decline to last throughout 1954. In other words, the professional economists will be surprised if the “re-adjustment” ends “soon.” As a matter of record, the Joint Committee on the Economic Report (officially established by Congress to appraise the President’s Economic Report, and composed of a majority of Republicans) is quoted in the New York Times of February 27, 1951 as “not fully satisfied with the Government’s anti-recession program, and (it) finds the administration’s farm program particularly unsatisfactory.”Just what is the administration’s “anti-recession” program? It was supposed to have been stated explicitly and at length in the President’s State of the Union Message, the Budget, and the Economic Report. By and large, the Eisenhower anti-recession program consists of three parts denial that a recession exists and one part piously wishing that it would go away – if it does exist. These three major policy documents can be searched from beginning to end, and any anti-recession program will he found conspicuous by its absence. There is discernible an anti-New Deal philosophy, typically expressed by the following paragraph from the Budget Message:“This budget marks the beginning of a movement to shift to State and local government and to private enterprise Federal activities which can be more appropriately and more efficiently carried on in that way. The lending activities of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; the services provided by the inland Waterways Corporation; certain agricultural activities; and some aspects of our health, education, and welfare programs are examples of this type of action.”Nevertheless, there is an administration program. Officially, it can be summarised as providing tax incentives and other necessary stimuli to capital investment. Unofficially, it might he called Turning the Country Back to the Indians (read: Monopoly Capital) or How To Loot the Public Treasury in Three Easy Lessons. Whether it be reducing the taxes on dividends, or more rapid depreciation allowances, or other fiscal policy, the philosophy stems from the theory that what is good for big business (General Motors and its allies) is good for the country.Much of the theoretical foundation for the administration’s program apparently originates with Arthur F. Burns, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, who is interviewed in the New York Times of Feb. 22, 1951 by Joseph A. Loftus on the occasion of the publication of a collection of Burns’ essays. The heart of the Burns philosophy is revealed by the following exchange:In an essay written in 1948, he made this observation about Government policy in the depression of the Nineteen Thirties:“On the whole, consumer spending responded much better to the Governmental measures than private investment.”How, then, could he justify an Administration tax policy now that puts emphasis on incentive to private investment rather than on consumer spending?The circumstances were quite different then, he explained. The present tax program would have made no sense whatever in the early days of that depression. Business confidence was shattered. Now it is different. Stock prices are up, commodity prices are not down. Investment expenditures are being pretty well maintained. Business confidence is running high. There is a good chance of stimulating investment further.As the question is being stated – “do you want to stimulate consumption or production?” – Dr. Burns continued, the “underconsumptionists” would win."
}
|
{
"content": "But, he said, that does not state the issue correctly. As the facts are now, he said, if you cut a consumer’s tax $1, he may spend from zero to $1, no more. If you cut business taxes $1, business may spend as much as $50. A new environment for business spending is created.If business confidence is high, why is there need to stimulate it?There has been a decline, he said, adding that no responsible thinker can say positively it will be self-limiting. It could become a spiraling contraction. (Italics mine – T.N.V.)Just what good it would do to stimulate capital expansion, when the source of the present recession is the crisis in agricultural production and in certain consumer durables, especially automobiles, is not explained by Dr. Burns, for he has yet to ask himself (publicly) what is the cause of the present decline? And yet, according to Loftus, in the above-quoted article: “This is some of the thinking of the man who probably does more to shape the economic policies of the Administration than any other individual except the President.”Whether it is a better understanding of economics, or a keener political sense that is responsible, the Democrats have dramatically focused attention on the Administration’s pro-Big Business orientation by the proposal of Senator George that income tax exemption credit for dependents be increased from the present $600 to $800 and then, next year, to $1,000. Such a proposal, of course, would benefit the mass of the population and would serve to stimulate consumption.Although the administration has officially come out against the George proposal, Congressional Republicans are uneasy about entering an election campaign with unemployment at the four or five million mark, and with the Democrats pushing tax relief for the masses while the Republicans are committed to tax relief for finance capital. That is why the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, mentioned above, is quoted as saying: “Tax relief for the middle and lower income brackets, to bolster consumer demand, might be desirable sooner than President Eisenhower has indicated.” And further: “Better preparations for a public works program are necessary; there should be a public works administrator, responsible directly to the President, and substantial credit should be available to local communities for such projects.” (Italics mine – T.N.V.) Shades of WPA and PWA!The Loftus interview with Burns concludes by quoting from one of Burns’ essays: “Subtle understanding of economic change comes from a knowledge of history and large affairs, not from statistics or their processing alone – to which our disturbed age has turned so eagerly in its quest for certainty.” To which we say “Amen!” Such understanding, however, cannot be found in Burns or in the Eisenhower administration. T.N. VanceMarch 7, 1951 Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 26 April 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyArming for Boss War(November 1940)From Labor Action, Vol. 4 No. 32, 18 November 1940, p. 3.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).Who Pays?“We have just begun to rearm. There must be a higher debt limit and new taxes.”So said Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, two days after Roosevelt was re-elected for a third term. Conservative estimates indicate that the government will spend at least 20 billion dollars during the next year and a half. This is a lot of money, no matter how one looks at it. It amounts to about 30% of the of the current national income.We know how Germany is financing the war – by increasing the working day to 12 and 14 hours, speeding up labor, higher taxes that fall most heavily on the masses of the people, by looting the occupied territories through a system of scientific stealing – in two words, by a system of forced labor. A totalitarian regime is well equipped for this method. The institution of an extremely rigid type of capitalist slavery is the fundamental reason why fascism came to power. The Lesson of EnglandHow is the war financed in England, a democratic capitalist country? Does England, which claims to be fighting a war for democracy, finance the war in a more democratic way possible, by having those most able to pay for themselves cost of the war (about 36 million dollars daily)? Are the standards of living of the English masses maintained? the answer is very definitely, no! The London Economist’s index of British prices on Nov. 5, 1940 was about 42% higher than at the outbreak of the war. In spite of higher taxes, the British capitalist is finding the war very profitable, aside from those whose plants have been destroyed by bombings – and these will probably be reimbursed by the government. Conservative bourgeois sources indicate that the average standard of living of the British worker (aside from those rendered homeless by bombings) has declined about one-third since the outbreak of the war. In both England and Germany, the masses are bearing the burden of World War II, thus destroying a lot of the fake pretexts given for the war. Must we expect the same sort of thing in this country? The opinion of London financial circles is very interesting, in view of the experience the British have had with this problem.“It is felt,” says a dispatch to the New York Times, dated Nov. 10, “that the New Deal policies will be pushed into the background by more urgent requirements of rearmament and even larger United States backing for the British war effort. It is remarked by commentators in the financial press that the urgency of the production drive entails on Mr. Roosevelt the necessity of treating big business more gently than hitherto.” Workers Will PayComment on this is really superfluous. The British capitalists need not fear for their American brethren. Roosevelt does not need their advice. He has already taken the necessary steps to make sure that the American workers pay for the cost of rearmament. When the “defense” program was first projected earlier this year, Roosevelt indicated very clearly how he was going to handle the problem of paying for the cost of the program by broadening the base of the income tax, so that those in the lower income brackets, who have hitherto been exempt, will now pay an income tax. The rates have been stepped up so that the workers and lower middle classes will pay proportionately much more than previously. Special “national defense” taxes were levied on amusements, movies, gasoline, liquor and tobacco, which, of course, fall most heavily on the masses. Government employees will pay both a state and federal income tax.Now that the election is over, the program is unfolded in all its reactionary splendor. Most of the money, it seems, is to be raised by increasing the national debt limit to $60,000,000,000 (it is now 45 billions). This, as Wall Street correctly interpreted, is a measure with inflationary tendencies. “I have no fear of inflation now that President Roosevelt is back,” says the eminent Secretary of Treasury, but just why Roosevelt should be any better able to prevent rising prices than Churchill, he does not indicate. Without the introduction of prices, which mean a lower standard of living for the masses, are inevitable. The Tax SwindleIt is also indicated that a small portion of the money will be raised by new taxes. I have already indicated in a previous article, that the excess profits tax is a swindle and will raise very little. What new taxes are meant? The only one indicated is a proposal to tax government bonds, which are now tax exempt.This explains why the banks and big corporations have been getting rid of their government bonds during the past few months. Some money will undoubtedly be raised by this method, but we can expect that it will be chiefly through another Liberty Loan campaign, which means that the lower middle classes and higher-paid workers will bear the brunt of the patriotic salesmanship pressure. Other taxes, since present measures are obviously inadequate to cover the cost of the program, will most likely be forthcoming. Our experiences to date, however, indicate that it is “we, the little people,” who will pay for them. Since the squeeze on the government’s finances will become tighter and tighter, no matter how much the normal revenue from taxation is increased due to a higher national income, we can expect also that very shortly Roosevelt will begin to listen to Senator Byrd and others who propose that “we should at once economize on non-essential peacetime spending.” By “non-essential” spending, these people, of course, mean WPA, slum-clearance and the like. As long as Roosevelt refuses to make those who can afford to pay for the “defense” program, it’s a cinch that the workers and broad masses will bear the brunt of the rearmament program. And why, indeed, should it be any different here than in England or Germany?Who Profits?"
}
|
{
"content": "“The profits of twenty-eight steel companies for the first nine months of 1940 were $169,919,408, compared with $54,606,254 in the same period in 1939, despite the fact that tax appropriations for the current year were virtually double those in the comparable period. The increase amounts to 211% for the nine months.”The above quotation, from an article in the financial section of the New York Times on Nov. 10, gives the answer to our question. It merely gives actual figures for a generally-observed situation. Business is booming. Production levels will probably exceed 1929 levels for 1940. Profits will be very close to 1929 profits.It is estimated that profits for all industry will reach the total of 10 billion dollars in 1940. (Why not just take all of this – if rearming is what the bosses want!) America has definitely entered upon an armaments boom, which will be much, much greater during 1941 than even during 1940. The only difference between the present boom and the 1929 boom, aside from the fact that an armaments boom is never very sound or lasting, is that most of the big profits are made by even fewer of the big corporations. In the case of the steel profits cited above, for example, 12 steel leaders made net profits of $157,341,000 during the first nine months of 1940. The other 16 steel companies made only 12½ millions – enough to keep the wolf away from the door, but chicken feed compared to the money made by U.S. Steel, Bethlehem, Republic, Weir’s National Steel, and the other big steel corporations. Prosperity for RichThe same story is true in auto, rubber, oil and the other mass production industries. Prosperity has arrived for America’s 60 families and their friends. Chemical, aviation, shipbuilding and munitions factories are working 24 hours a day. Orders are piled up for a year or two in advance. And most of this increase in production is being accomplished with relatively little increase in the number of workers hired. The investments in plant and equipment are so large that most of these industries will pay hardly and excess profits tax. Anti-trust laws and prosecutions against big business monopolies are being suspended in the interests of “national defense.” Labor’s OpportunityHere it would seem, lies the big opportunity for America’s trade unions, especially the CIO, which has most of the unions in the mass production industries, to demand substantial wage increases. Industry cannot justifiably raise the argument that it cannot “afford” higher wages and better working conditions. The figures show otherwise. Moreover, in spite of the organization drives of the CIO, these industries are still largely unorganized. Those that are organized, however, are making just as big profits as those that are unorganized. Just compare U.S. Steel, which is organized, with Bethlehem and Little Steel which are unorganized. Or, General Motors with Ford. Or, the independent oil companies with Standard Oil.This is labor’s big opportunity. Failure to take advantage of it, however, will mean not only the death of certain unions, but it will mean that big business with its reactionary social program, will be more firmly in the saddle than ever. Wartime prosperity has, in the past, usually been accompanied by increased labor organization and the growth of the trade union movement. But that was in the period of expanding capitalism.The present period, in spite of the war-time boom, is a period of declining capitalism. The bosses will fight even more desperately, therefore, against any attempts at organization by labor. The union movement, under pressure from the unorganized workers and the rank and file of labor, in general, will be compelled in the interests of self-preservation to widen and strengthen its efforts at organization. It will run smack up against the cry, “If you strike, you are interfering with national defense.” And this, at a time when big capital is writing its own ticket as to the terms on which it will cooperate with the rearmament program. The battle to organize the mass production industries, especially the key “defense” industries like aviation, chemicals, munitions and ship-building, will, through its outcome, determine in large part the future of this country.If the unions fail to measure up to the responsibility that is theirs, even such labor standards and unions as exist now will be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the unions succeed in defending and advancing the basic economic rights of labor, then we will have taken a long step forward in the struggle to maintain our elementary rights, and, ultimately, to advance towards a socialist society. Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 28.10.2012"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageKenneth MacKenzie & T.N. VanceAn Exchange on NationalisationA Discussion of Government Ownership of War Industries(March 1952)From The New International, Vol. XVIII No. 2, March–April 1952, pp. 108–111.Transcribed by Ted Crawford.Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).To the Editor:Your publication continues to be one of the few things I read that consistently makes sense. It is only because I like you that I would venture a little disagreement.T.N. Vance ends his brilliant series on the was economy with what seems to me too great an emphasis on the proposal – “Nationalize the War Industries.” He says this must now be the chief slogan of socialists, and gives it special place among the other transitional slogans as corresponding to the needs of the workers and the times. But how does it actually fit in with our other demands and our philosophy?The paid thinkers of the rich like to equate socialism with any build-up in the authority of the state. But we have learned to our sorrow that the equation is false. The most nationalized state in existence is the least social, the least beneficial to man. There exists no economic law to guarantee that as economic power is taken from individual companies or combines of companies and put in the hands of a government, it thereby is any easier for the working class to control and apply to pro-human ends.Many workers who now find it easier to deal with private employers would consider it is calamity for the government to operate all big industry.If carried into effect, nationalization, unlike the other transitional demands, might not stimulate worker power as opposed to owner power. The sliding scale, though distorted by the employers, has raised a great issue and exposed the administration’s wage-price fakery. With the “books” once opened, things would never again be quite the same. Worker’s control, worker’s defense, these things build the confidence of the class and instruct and educate workers to take further responsibilities.But putting all economic power in Washington, even under an administration of labor leaders, still leaves open the possibility of transition from a capitalist to a bureaucrat state. And compensation to former owners may eat up the economic benefits. So it seems to me that we should support nationalization if in time of crisis the American working class desires to take this road as have the English, Germans, etc., but not make it an unqualified fundamental issue at any and all times. Sincerely yours,Kenneth MacKenzieTop of page Reply by VanceKenneth MacKenzie is, of course, absolutely correct when he observes that nationalization in and of itself is not necessarily progressive – and may well be reactionary in its impact on society. The lessons of Stalinism – not to mention other examples of nationalization – are too clear on this basic lesson of modern history.Nevertheless, nationalization of war industries is the correct political slogan for socialists today. It is not put forward in the abstract, but could only become meaningful through mobilization of powerful class and social forces. It is not to be contrasted with Workers Control of Production; on the contrary, the latter supplements the former.It was not possible at the conclusion of my last article on the Permanent War Economy to expand on the development and interrelationship of tactical political slogans. Nor was it necessary. The essential thought was contained in one sentence: “Neither nationalization of war industries nor a capital levy are thinkable as realistic political slogans without the development of an independent labor party.”In the political context of USA 1952, nationalization of war industries is the only economic slogan that corresponds to the objective needs of the political-social situation. The stretch-out in the “Defense Program” has dramatically revealed the weaknesses of the Permanent War Economy under capitalism. A process of atrophy, revealing an organic disease of the body economic, has set in. The ratio of war outlays to total production required to sustain the economy at full employment and high production levels is constantly under pressure of having to be increased. Immediately after World War II a 10 per cent ratio of war outlays sufficed to offset the natural tendencies of capitalism toward depression and crisis. After Korea, with its consequent acceleration in the accumulation of capital, a 15 per cent ratio of war outlays barely achieved a precarious equilibrium. Today it may well be that a 20 per cent ratio of war outlays (direct and indirect) to total output is needed to prevent a serious undermining of the economy.On the economic front, war contracts become more and more desirable to the bourgeoisie. Production of the means of destruction. is now at least as important as production of the means of production in the capitalist process of production and accumulation of surplus values. And on the political front, the preparations for war against Stalinism dominate the international and American political scenes. Virtually every issue that arises is immediately related to the irrepressible conflict between Stalinist and American imperialisms, if indeed it does not arise out of this conflict.One cannot imagine Eisenhower, Taft, Stevenson, Truman, or any spokesman for the Republican and Democratic parties favoring the nationalization of war industries. That would immediately generate fratricidal strife within the bourgeoisie. Nor, for that matter, can one readily picture Murray, Green or any other trade union defender of capitalism advocating taking the profit out of war through the nationalization of war industries. That would immediately lead to a split between organized labor and the capitalist political machines. The. trade union leaders would consider such action only if the ranks of organized labor make it unmistakably clear that they are for it."
}
|
{
"content": "An entire process of class struggle and education is therefore necessary before any but the most militant workers support the nationalization of war industries. In this struggle socialists must be in the forefront, for here in one, easily comprehensible slogan the evils and illnesses of capitalism are immediately laid bare. If the Permanent War Economy is to become our way of life indefinitely, as the leaders of the bourgeoisie openly state, then what is more logical than making the war industries serve the “interests” of all by making them the property of all? We do not have to belabor the advantages of the slogan, “nationalization of war industries” properly utilized.Moreover, we may well be on the threshold of the long-heralded regroupment of American political forces. It is impossible indefinitely to maintain an archaic political set-up that no longer serves the needs of the ruling class and has long since lost any meaning for the mass of the population. The timid leaders of labor may well be immobilized by the shifting political forces. They may even be unaware that structural alterations are taking place in the body politic. But when they are, so to speak, “hit on the head” – as they must be in the course of the next few years – then they may awaken to the fact that the American political trend must either be in the direction of Bonapartism or independent labor political action. In such an objective situation (not “at any and all times”), the struggle to nationalize the war industries can play an important role in the political awakening of the American working class.Socialists ought not to wait for the working class spontaneously to “desire to take this road (of nationalization of war industries).” They should and can lead the workers in a rapid and vast re-educational process. That is the real significance of putting forward the slogan “nationalization of war industries” to-day.T.N. Vance Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 15 December 2018"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageT.N. VanceThe Permanent War Economy(1951)From New International, Vol. XVII Nos. 1–6, 1951.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).Part I – Its Basic CharacteristicsPart II – Declining Standards of LivingPart III – Increasing State InterventionPart IV – Military-Economic ImperialismPart V – Some Significant TrendsPart VI – Taxation and Class Struggle Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 16 August 2019"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyAnd the Price of Food Will Go Up!(August 1941)From Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 33, 18 August 1941, pp. 2 & 3.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).The first witness to testify before the House Banking and Currency Committee concerning the Price Control Bill was Leon Henderson, administrator of the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply. When Mr. Henderson got to the question of agricultural prices, he was questioned about the reason for the bill containing the provision that the ceiling on farm prices be 110 per cent of parity instead of the Administration’s long-sought goal of 100 per cent of parity.While Mr. Henderson hesitated and looked toward Chairman Steagall, who took credit for this change in a press interview. Representative Ford of California interrupted: “I answer – votes.” Never was a truer word spoken by a congressman. All the legislation in regard to the economic controls to be established under the war economy has been subject to an old-fashioned log-rolling process. But the provision for 110 per cent of parity on farm prices represents one of the greatest triumphs the congressional farm bloc has ever scored in long years of pressure politics and, by the same token, a tremendous blow at the standard of living of the vast majority of the working population of this country. The BackgroundTo understand what is involved, we must first briefly consider the meaning of “parity” and the situation of the farm population, particularly as affected by World War II. Parity, according to the dictionary, means equality. The word first came into prominence during the 1920s when farm lobbyists and farmers’ organizations, especially the Farm Bureau, an organization representing the more well-to-do commercial farmers, used it to describe their goal for farm recovery.The farmers of the United States, for a series of historical reasons, had entered into an era of permanent depression following World War I. The Armistice of 1918 left them with terrific surpluses on hand, particularly in the staple crops, wheat and cotton. The colonial areas of the world – Canada, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, Egypt – had greatly increased their production of these commodities under the stimulus of war-time demand. Cheaper production in these new territories and imperialist trade rivalries meant the steady loss of foreign markets for the American farmer. While more clothing, bread and other necessities which are made from farm products could easily be used by the American population, this is not possible under capitalism to any great extent. For capitalism means an economy of scarcity and insufficient purchasing power in the hands of the vast majority who produce the wealth of this country – the workers.Consequently, the prices of farm products began to decline. Meanwhile, the prices of industrial products (the things the farmer must buy) either remained high or went higher. As a result, the purchasing power of the farmer’s dollar went down steadily. The farmers wanted more purchasing power; that is, they wanted higher prices for farm commodities in relation to the prices of industrial products which they had to buy. They said they wanted equality between farm prices and industrial prices. Hence, the slogan of “parity.” But – and here is the vital question – what period should be selected as an example of parity, of the proper relationship between farm and industrial prices? The farm organizations examined the government’s statistics and selected the period from 1909–1914 as “normal” for the relationship between farm and industrial prices. “Normal” or “Abnormal”?What is meant by “normal” is always, of course, a difficult question to answer. The fact of the matter is, however, as any examination of price statistics will show, that the period from 1909–1914 represents the highest possible parity base which could be selected in the 20th century. It is distinctly an abnormal period, if by “normal” we mean what is most usual or typical. The period from 1909–1914 represents an extremely prosperous period for farmers. This applies, to be sure, only to the capitalist farmers; but the whole discussion of parity prices is only concerned with the relatively well-to-do capitalist farmers, representing at the most some 35 per cent of the farm population who produce 89 per cent of the total value of all farm crops which are marketed. The majority of the farmers who live in real poverty and distress, the tenant farmers, share-croppers and agricultural laborers, are certainly not the concern of the congressional farm bloc, for parity cannot help them. Only a fundamental change in the economic system and a redistribution of the land can improve the status of these truly forgotten people of America.The first attempts to achieve parity under Coolidge and Hoover were miserable failures. They are important only as confirmation of the necessity for government intervention in solving the problems created by a declining capitalist order. The onset of the great depression of 1929 only made matters worse tor the farmers.In 1933 came the New Deal, promising all things to all men. Recognizing the strategic situation of the farm bloc in Congress and the great voting strength of the farm states, the New Deal political strategists promised parity to the farmers. Their first effort, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, was a colossal blunder and a crime against humanity. They tried to raise the prices of farm products by ordering the farmers to plow under every third row of cotton and wheat – at a time when millions were going ragged for want of clothing and starving for want of food. The slight increase in farm prices which followed was largely due to the subsequent droughts."
}
|
{
"content": "The only important result of this first New Deal attempt to solve the farm problem was to strengthen the farm bloc in Congress. The farm bloc was now in the position of being able to blackmail the Roosevelt Administration on any important measure that it wanted to pass. Time after time, the farm bloc, in return for votes supporting the general Roosevelt program, received important concessions in the form of desired subsidies to the CAPITALIST farmers. It has been horse trading on a grand scale. World War IIThe failure of the Roosevelt farm program was emphasized by the election of 1936, which showed the farm belt clearly swinging away from the Democratic Party back to its traditional Republican allegiance. This called for heroic measures, and finally resulted in the passage of the AAA of 1938, which incorporates the goal of parity into existing legislation. Nobody quite knew how this goal was to be achieved, but the act, sometimes referred to as the Omnibus Act, contained every possible scheme that capitalist politicians could think of. It was rapidly being demonstrated a failure, in spite of the addition of the Food Stamp Plan, when, in September 1939, World War II broke out.The immediate effect of World War II on the farmers was the reverse of World War I. In World War I, when Europe turned its fields into human slaughter houses, the Allies bought huge quantities of farm products in the U.S. This time, however, the newly developed colonial areas of the world could more than supply the needs of England and France. Moreover, the Allies, particularly the English, found it necessary to conserve their cash for the purchase of American munitions and planes. England actually reduced its normal purchases of cotton and tobacco from the U.S. As a consequence, the government warehouses have accumulated huge surpluses of the staple crops. The situation has been farther aggravated by the so-called “Hemisphere Defense Policy.” In the long run, this means that American imperialism will import agricultural raw materials from Latin America (products like wheat, cotton, meat, hides and copper, which, far the most part, compete directly with the American farmer) in return for its exports of capital and industrial commodities.The pressure from the farm states to relieve the situation grew tremendously. Every step of the Roosevelt war program, in order to pass Congress, has had to be accompanied by concessions to the farm bloc. Meanwhile, the expenditure of billions of dollars for war by the government has had an inflationary effect on all prices, particularly farm prices. Mr. Henderson, in his testimony, stated the following percentage relationship of farm prices to parity as of July 15: rice 102, cottonseed 120, butter fat 112, milk equivalent 102, chickens 111, eggs 100, hogs 106, beef cattle 127, veal calves 114, lamb 117, Maryland tobacco 188, wool 149, corn 81, wheat 73, oats 62, and cotton 87. THE WHOLESALE COMMODITY INDEX OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS SHOWS THAT FOOD PRICES ARE RISING EVEN FASTER THAN THE GENERAL LEVEL OF PRICES – WHOLESALE FOOD PRICES HAVING RISEN ABOUT 60 PER CENT SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR II. Price Control BillUnder the terms of the Price Control Bill, as introduced in the House of Representatives, agricultural prices will have a ceiling 110 per cent of parity – that is, 10 per cent more than the farm propagandists ever dared to demand. From the figures quoted by Mr. Henderson, it will mean a tremendous increase in the price of most of the important food and clothing items in the worker’s budget. Moreover, those prices which are above parity as of July 29 will have this higher level maintained as an alternative price ceiling. The price of meats, for example, will remain at the present extremely high levels. On the average, therefore, the workers are confronted with a bill whose avowed purpose is to prevent higher prices and inflation, but which will guarantee a 20 PER CENT INCREASE IN PRICES. Moreover, it is only the wealthy farmers and big middlemen who will benefit from this handout at the expense of the workers and the poor farmers. All of which only serves to emphasize once again the extreme injustices of the capitalist economic system, particularly in wartime, and the absolute necessity for workers’ control of price-fixing. Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 13.1.2013"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageT.N. VanceAfter Korea – What?An Economic Interpretation of US Perspectives(November 1950)T.N. Vance, After Korea – What?, New International, November-December 1950, pp.323-333. Transcribed by Ted Crawford.Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).While the outcome of the Korean war remains obscure at this writing, immediate outbreak of World War III is most unlikely. Even if the major antagonists find it impossible to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise, they are unprepared for global combat. The motives that prompted Stalinist imperialism to launch the attack against South Korea on June 25, as well as the motives that led American imperialism promptly to intervene, are well known and require no further analysis here. Nor need we be particularly concerned with the resolution of the many complex political, social and economic problems arising from the liquidation of the Korean war, as these have no real strategic significance in the titanic struggle now being waged between bureaucratic collectivism (Stalinist imperialism) and capitalism (American imperialism) for control of the entire world.It is worth noting, in passing, that the political vacuum which existed in Korea and which was in a sense responsible for the war will remain. For the war has graphically revealed that an independent political force in Korea can never be powerful enough to achieve sovereignty. A Third Camp is not and cannot exist on any consequential scale in that unfortunate Land of the Morning Calm. Like other border areas incapable of independent existence, Korea is faced with the unhappy choice of a regime propped up by American bayonets or one controlled by the Stalinist secret police.What is important, however, for the world as a whole and for the orientation of the independent socialist movement in particular, is the perspectives that flow for the rival imperialisms once hostilities cease in Korea: Is the world to become two armed camps, waiting fearfully for the inexorable outbreak of World War III, or is some type of peace possible? Can the strategic aims of Stalinist and American imperialisms be modified in any significant degree? In a word, will the environment in which the class struggle operates differ in any noteworthy features from that which existed prior to the Korean war? And, if so, what will the consequences be and how can any such new trends be expected to manifest themselves? These are obviously crucial questions for the independent socialist movement and we shall seek to answer them in this and later articles.The spectacle of grown men mouthing meaningless words about peace is one with which we have become all too familiar in recent years. It has become even less edifying, if that is possible, as a result of the “peace” programs set forth by Acheson and Vishinsky amid the nauseating maneuvers of the rival imperialist blocs within the United Nations. Acheson has made it plain that the only program Washington has is to arm to the hilt. Then, when parity of armed forces is achieved, “we can negotiate with the Russians.” And this is called a policy, expressed by a “responsible statesman” occupying the lofty position of Secretary of State!To such a policy even a Vishinsky can reply with telling effect (The New York Times, October 14): “Authoritative American spokesmen say that it is only force that can impress the Soviet Union, and that when the United States is so strong as to make the Soviet Union shake in its shoes then, and only then, will it be possible to reach some understanding. What a profound and crude mistake! ... This is the policy of the diktat, the policy of pressure and imposition, the policy of demands and half-demands, repeatedly presented, pressed, bolstered and backed up by force, a proliferation of military measures, and circles of naval, land and air bases ...”In the course of the same speech, Stalin’s Foreign Minister indicated the equally bankrupt “peace” policy of Stalinist imperialism. After complaining that “The policy (of American imperialism) has been changed ... from the wartime period of cooperation ... to the post-war ... tough policy,” Vishinsky asks, “Why do you not get back to that situation (of wartime cooperation)? If you do, things might change. I am profoundly convinced that things would change. To this thinly disguised offer of a deal; American imperialism has repeatedly given its answer: “The Soviet Government cannot be trusted to keep its word.”Mutual recriminations about who changed which policy first only serve to conceal the basic dilemma, which explains why neither Stalinist nor American imperialism can “trust the other.” The wartime alliance between Anglo-American and Stalinist imperialisms was brought about solely due to the superior threat posed by an aggressive German imperialism under Hitler. In the absence of any such threat, it is impossible for the imperialist expressions of capitalism and bureaucratic collectivism to arrive at any lasting agreement that would permit a peaceful solution of the world’s problems.The conflict between bureaucratic collectivism and capitalism is irrepressible. No matter what pious statements about peaceful coexistence of the two systems are issued by Moscow and Washington, they cannot disguise the fundamental antagonisms that make inevitable a clash for world supremacy. We are long accustomed to the periodic quotations from Stalin, as the occasion demands, about the “peaceful intentions of the USSR,” and (buttressed by falsified quotations from Lenin) the “possibility of peace between socialism and capitalism.”Now we are treated to a similar disingenuous spectacle by the State Department, over which the same Acheson presides. A popular pamphlet entitled Our Foreign Policy has recently been issued. According to The New York Times of September 30, the volume constitutes a bitter indictment of Soviet policy, but it also sets out to disprove the “view that the East-West split is one between communism and capitalism.” In other words, The State Department also set out to correct what it regarded as an incorrect impression of the present tension of the world. It is not a question of differing economic systems, said the booklet, but of the threat of a new imperialist power."
}
|
{
"content": "“The deepening division between the Soviet-dominated bloc and the free world is not, as some people wrongly think, a conflict between capitalism and communism”, it said. “Among the nations of the free world, in fact, you will find some that are not capitalist at all, but have freely chosen a socialist system.“The conflict is really between a power-hungry government that is bent on spreading its power by force, terror and every other means and the community of free nations which refuses to be conquered or dominated, or to stand by and see its members swallowed up.” (Italics mine – T.N.V.)Thus, the State Department, like Vishinsky, would have us believe that all that is involved is a question of methods. That is to say, if Stalinism would relinquish its tactics of force, subversion and violence then we could have a peaceful world. It is axiomatic that methods flow from the socio-economic structure of a given state, but even if Stalinism employed “democratic” methods acceptable to Washington, American imperialism would still refuse “to stand by and see its members swallowed up.” Moreover, by this time it should be ABC, even to the State Department, that what really makes “the threat of a new imperialist power” is the existence of a new ruling class exploiting society in a new manner; namely, the social system known as bureaucratic collectivism. To be sure, this system is the antithesis of socialism and was actually brought to power by a counter-revolution that destroyed the workers state established by the Bolshevik Revolution.Nevertheless, it is the irreconcilable antagonisms between two economic systems that have given rise to the “East-West conflict” and which threaten to lead us to World War III within the next decade. Both Moscow and Washington, at bottom, know this, although from time to time each has politically expedient reasons for issuing propaganda, designed to convey a different impression. And each has its own reasons for preparing in its own way for the inevitable showdown.Stalinist imperialism, to which bureaucratic collectivism has given rise, is a system of slavery and peonage based on nationalized property. It is essentially an “import” imperialism whose aggressive policy is based on the economic necessity of acquiring constantly new sources of labor power; both skilled and slave, and of adding to its stock of producer and consumers goods, and which can feel safe politically only when it has integrated the major centers of world population and production into the system of bureaucratic collectivism. The Stalinist empire, as the same booklet of the State Department points out, has already enhanced its domain since the end of World War II by some 7,500,000 square miles of territory and by some 500,000,000 more people.American imperialism, on the other hand is by far the most powerful imperialism to which finance capitalism has given birth. It is an “export” imperialism, inexorably driven by the most rapid accumulation of capital in the history of capitalism to export capital in all its forms in ever-increasing quantities. It is easy-going and bloated but it cannot be indifferent to the huge bites that Stalinism has taken out of the world market. It must first contain Stalinist imperialism and then destroy it.In retrospect it is clear to American imperialism that it made many mistakes during the war, although the menace of German and Japanese imperialisms was immediate and real, while the danger of Stalinist imperialism was remote and at best imperfectly understood. To some extent these “mistakes” were unavoidable, for history rarely permits capitalism to function in terms of the long-run interests of the international bourgeoisie. What disturbs Washington, however, is the postwar mistake of permitting Stalin such an overwhelming head-start in the armaments race, for the curve of munitions production requires years before it generates real momentum. Indeed, it was not until 1944, despite the destruction wrought by Allied bombing, that American war production exceeded that of Nazi Germany. This lesson is well known in Washington and amounts for the unanimity that greeted the launching of the “national defense” program.In this connection, the series of articles in The New York Times by its Moscow correspondent, Harrison E. Salisbury, is most interesting. Having just returned from a vacation in the United States, Salisbury has found Stalinland to be one of peace and growing prosperity. “The atmosphere of Moscow, and of the part of Russia that I crossed in traveling here from Poland,” he says, “is not one of war nor of preparation for war.” He concludes his dispatch of October 13 by stating: “What is interesting about the Soviet situation is that as of today, so far as research can determine, there has been no substantial changeover of the economy from its predominantly peacetime aspect to one of preparation for, or anticipation of, war.”We do not wish to impugn Mr. Salisbury’s research abilities, or even the facilities made available to him in conducting his research, but the timing of the articles invites the suspicion that they were inspired by more than reportorial zeal and the conclusion is demonstrably false. The facts have nothing to do with atmosphere, which may well be as reported, but if Moscow today has a “predominantly peacetime aspect” it can only be because the normal face of Stalinism is one of a Permanent War Economy. The maintenance of 300 divisions, even it all are not at full wartime strength, the arming of the satellites, the military-technological development of strategic roads, canals, railroads, airports and other means of communication and transportation within the satellite countries, the expansion of the Soviet Navy, especially the submarine fleet, the feverish development of uranium mines, etc., etc., are an indisputable evidence of a war economy."
}
|
{
"content": "Since statistics are a “class science” in Stalinland, we cannot say what the precise percentage of the national product spent for war purposes is, but at a guess we would place it in the neighborhood of 25 per cent. Since during the last war only about 50 per cent of the national product was devoted by the Soviet Government to direct war outlays, such a reduction coupled with the fruits of imperialist acquisition and increasing production could well result in some improvement in civilian standards of living. The important point is that for Stalinism the shift from “peace” to “war” is only quantitative, not qualitative, and can be accomplished without upsetting normal routines, either politically or economically.Moreover, while the ultimate aim of Stalinist imperialist strategy is conquest of the entire world, the immediate aims are clearly more limited. Time, the Kremlin feels, is on its side. It must complete the process of integrating the economics of existing satellites into its own. It needs another five-year plan or perhaps two, to increase its production and military potential to the desired level of overwhelming superiority, not to mention atomic equality. It must overthrow Tito and eliminate Titoism, in which objective it may have been mightily aided by the recent drought in Yugoslavia that, at last report, has destroyed some 4,000,000 tons of foodstuffs. Then must come the closing of the pincers on India and, choicest morsel of all, acquisition of all of Germany.The air of confidence and tranquillity with which Stalinist spokesmen face the future is therefore much more than a mere propaganda “trick,” a so-called “peace offensive” to lull the decadent democracies into lowering their armed guard so that they will be an easy prey for a sudden onslaught. Stalin would welcome a deal with American imperialism, provided that it did not materially weaken his chances of obtaining control of the entire vast Eurasian heartland, for this is the realistic strategic objective of Stalinist imperialism in the next decade. The Stalinist ruling class has everything to gain by postponing the final battle with American imperialism, or so it reasons.Two aspects of current American imperialist policy are most noteworthy. Internally, there is minimal unanimity within the American bourgeoisie regarding the fundamentals of imperialist strategy. The Truman policy of containment of Stalinist imperialism, which is the essential meaning of all major steps in foreign policy in recent years, may be criticized as to the manner in which it has been carried out but it is rare indeed that anyone seeks to change the objective or, the major strategy adopted to achieve this basic purpose. This is reflected in domestic politics by the extreme weakness of the isolationist fringe, an obvious but nonetheless significant difference from the post-World War I situation. It is apparent that all major tendencies within American imperialism are clearly aware that it would be fatal to permit Stalinist imperialism to control all of Europe and Asia, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian oceans, for if Stalinist imperialism controlled three-fourths of the world’s population an insoluble political problem is presented even if in the long run a military victory under such adverse conditions may still be possible.Externally, despite the establishment of the so-called Stettin-Trieste line and the attempts to establish a comparable demarcation line in Asia, American imperialism has clearly been on the defensive. It is Stalinist imperialism that selects the area and methods of struggle and American imperialism that replies with a thoroughly improvised policy. Because these tactical methods are either generally unsuccessful or incapable of achieving any lasting victory, which is more or less inevitable in view of American imperialism’s inability to solve any conflict on other than military terms, there is dissatisfaction with and criticism of specific tactics. This tactical opposition has combined with mounting economic pressures to establish the policy of containing Stalinist imperialism through the mobilization of superior armed force. From parity, which will be impossible to measure, to superiority of armed forces, which may not be easy to achieve, to World War III, which may be difficult to win, is the road on which American imperialism has definitely embarked.Korea exploded the fallacy that American imperialism could contain Stalinist imperialism through speeches and a business-as-usual (i.e., a defensive) policy. For a brief flurry it almost gave rise to its diametric opposite, the policy of the direct offensive which meant seeking immediately a purely military victory over Stalinist imperialism. This, in essence, is the position of the advocates of a “preventive” war and all variations thereof. We do not for one moment exclude the possibility that American imperialism can defeat Stalinist imperialism in an all-out war, featured especially by use of the atomic bomb, but such a military victory would be politically disastrous. It is most unlikely, moreover, that the struggle would be short or easy. On the contrary, all available evidence points to a protracted war between two fairly evenly matched antagonists. The consequent economic destruction and totalitarianization of American political life, without even considering the impact on the rest of the world, would make any military victor; absolutely worthless. Such a policy then can be only a last resort, to be embraced only if there is no other hope for survival of the American capitalist class.Faced with the failure of the previous “defensive” policy and the impossibility of adopting an overwhelmingly “aggressive” policy, the American bourgeoisie has finally reached a policy that in political terms can best be described as “Neither Peace nor War”. And is literally true that they do not want peace and cannot afford war with Stalinism! To be sure, American imperialism cannot mobilize the support of the international proletariat, as Trotsky hoped to do when he advanced the identical slogan on the occasion of the Brest Litovsk discussions, but it can hope to mobilise what is left of the international bourgeoisie."
}
|
{
"content": "The policy of “Neither Peace Nor War” will gain time, unless of course Stalinist imperialism reacts by casting the die for immediate war. This is most unlikely for reasons cited earlier. Naturally, if war does take place within the next few years, then the present breathing spell will have been utilized to overcome the Stalinist headstart in armaments production, or at least to reduce the present disparity, thereby enhancing the prospects of American imperialism for military victory. Above all, allies will be sought and armed in all areas of the world not under the control of Stalinist imperialism. This is, of course, the real meaning of the Atlantic Pact and related policies. The process of reducing British, French and other Western European imperialisms to the position of satellites dependent upon military and economic aid from the United States is a complicated one and takes time. It takes even more time to revive and harness the military power of defeated German and Japanese imperialisms. American imperialism would also like to have the time to conquer the markets of the disintegrating British Empire and to solve a series of other economic problems arising out of the pressure of the most rapid accumulation of capital in the history of the world.This ambivalent policy is not without its dangers, but there is no alternative for American imperialism. It even contains the hope that the death of Stalin may precipitate a struggle for succession that will greatly weaken or even destroy Stalinist imperialism. Mr Hoffman of ECA fame is fond of speculating on such a turn of events, and it is said that this is one of the reasons he opposed the militarization of the Marshall Plan which presumably led to his resignation.No better illustration of the significance of the new policy can be found than in what has happened to the Marshall Plan. Although in the interests of American imperialism, and part of the policy of Stalinist containment, it did nevertheless eschew military policies and it had make some progress toward improving standards of living in Western Europe and achieving a more rational and integrated economy. Now all this has been abandoned under the impact of the mobilization program. As The New York Times correspondent, Michael L. Hoffman, expresses it in his dispatch published on October 13 “Time and again in the past few weeks this correspondent has heard. European economic officials of various nationalities say with an actual or figurative shrug of the shoulders that as the United States seemed to have lost interest in everything except rearmament each country had better start looking out after itself in economic matters.” (My italics – T.N.V.) In fact, the article was headlined “Europe’s economy edges to autarchy.”The political reception that the new American policy has received in Europe and Asia, especially Asia, is anything but favorable. But it is its economic causes and effects that are the key to the shape of the world after the end of the Korean war.The immediate origin of the economic pressures that have pushed American imperialism into its new course, which is without historical precedent for a democratic capitalist nation, lies in the phenomenal expansion of the productive forces during World War II and the virtual maintenance of this level of production during the last five years. This development has not only been contrary to the expectations of the bourgeoisie but also, let us admit, unexpected by most Marxists. Here our analysis will be helped by making reference to some statistical measures, even if they are considered as but crude approximations.We start with the fact that production increased about 12 per cent a year during World War II, from 1939 to 1945. In other words, total output was some 72 per cent higher when the war ended than when it began. This can be seen by examining the figures for national income and national product of the Department of Commerce as published in the Survey of Current Business (the latest revisions are contained in the issue of July 1950).WARTIME GROWTH OF OUTPUT (Millions of Dollars) 19391945% IncreaseCurrentDollars% IncreaseConstantDollars*National Income$72,532$182,621152%84%Net National Product$83,238$202,800144%78%Gross National Product$91,339$215,210136%72%* Calculated by deflating the 1945 current dollar figures by the rise in the BLS wholesale price index, which rose from 77.1 in 1939 to 106.3 In 1945 – a rise of37.2 per cent yielding a deflator of 27.1 per cent.National income and product figures are, of course, estimates, but they are the only dollar figures that attempt to portray the productive performance of the economy. Without entering into current controversies among the national income specialists, and, granting that important conceptual and statistical problems are involved, we are concerned only with basic trends which are not altered even if the margin of error in the figures is sizable. Fundamentally, gross national product is larger than net national product by the inclusion of capital depreciation and depletion. That is, the net value of current production ought not to include the consumption of capital as this is already reflected in the final prices of commodities on the market. Net national product is larger than national income chiefly due to the inclusion of indirect business taxes and liabilities, i.e., sales and excise taxes, etc., thus affecting the evaluation of government services.We have based our conclusion about the Wartime growth of output on gross national product because, while the BLS wholesale price index is the best single indicator of price changes throughout the economy, it undoubtedly understates to some extent the degree of wartime inflation. A sounder procedure would have been to deflate separately each component of gross national product, but the work involved would not be justified by appreciably greater accuracy in the results. And for our purposes it is of relatively minor importance whether real output increased by 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 80 per cent during the war."
}
|
{
"content": "As a matter of fact, the federal reserve index of industrial production, which is based on physical volume, tends to confirm our analysis. This index, by for the most comprehensive of all industrial production indexes, rose from 109 in 1939 to 203 in 1945, a rise of 86 per cent. The Federal Reserve index, however, definitely overstates as a measure of total output in wartime because of weight assigned to war industries in its composition.We are therefore content to rest with the figure of 72 per cent as the wartime increase in total output. How was this huge increase in production achieved? Initial impetus, of course, was provided by the availability of significant quantities of idle resources, including over nine million unemployed. There then occurred a surprising increase in the total employed labor force which, including both the civilian and armed force sectors, rose from over 45 million in 1939 to about 64 million in 1915, a rise of roughly 40 per cent. Even without the armed forces of almost 12 million, the employed civilian labor force still rose by about seven million workers, who worked for longer hours and whose productivity was increased by a huge expansion in productive capacity largely as a result of the enormous government expenditures for plant and equipment. In other words, the wartime expansion in real output was made possible essentially by an increase in capital accumulation and in the supply of labor power, in roughly equal proportions.Had the wartime increase in the total labor force largely evaporated with the cessation of hostilities and had the wartime increase in capital been totally unsuited for peacetime use or, to the extent that it was unadaptable, had it not been substantially replenished by new, peacetime accumulations of capital, the level of activity of the economy would have reverted to prewar output, with consequent depressing effects. This did not occur, contrary to many expectations, because government expenditures were maintained at high levels, partly for war purposes, and American imperialism decided to support the recovery of the economics of Western Europe as part of the policy of containment of Stalinist imperialism and as a means of increasing the market for products of American capitalism. The entire process, of course, was nourished by the backlog accumulated backlog of consumer demands in the domestic market which, in turn, were supported by the tremendous level of private savings.The same procedure that was used to calculate the wartime increase in output shows that postwar output is currently almost the levels achieved at the end of the war. It is true that our calculations yield an 18 per cent decline in real output in last five years, but the decline in the last four years is only 5 per cent. In other words, more than two-thirds the relatively small decline that has occurred took place in 1946, in the first postwar year before the menace of Stalinist imperialism became apparent to the leaders of the American bourgeoisie. Perhaps a planned reconversion would have averted the decline of 1946 best it must be remembered that the dominant elements within American capitalism at that time were bating all their plans and policies on a return to the status quo ante bellum.It must be emphasized that the achievement of these extremely high levels of production occurred prior to the outbreak of the Korean war. For example, the Federal Reserve index was at 201 in July 1950 compared with 203 in 1945. Since then it has risen sharply, but at that level it is 14 per cent above 1949 and 5 per cent above 1948, the previous postwar peak. The labor force data show that the war-time peaks have been equaled. For June 1950 the employed civilian labor force was estimated (September 1950 issue of Monthly Labor Review) at 61,482,000. When the derived armed forces figure of 1,311,000 is added to this figure, the total employed labor force becomes 62,793,000 or close to the 64 minion figure reached in war time. There is, of course, the vast difference that the wartime figure included 12 million in the armed forces whereas the current pre-Korean armed forces figure is only slightly over 1,300,000. In other words, more than 9 million have been added to the employed civilian labor force since the end of World War II. These figures help to explain why Washington is so concerned about manpower shortages as the mobilization program unfolds, but they also reveal, in spite of the shorter work week, a goodly portion of the reason why postwar output has been maintained at almost wartime levels.The other part of the postwar story of high level production and employment is to be found in the extremely rapid rate of private capital accumulation, the figures for which are even more pregnant with meaning for the future than the manpower data. The tabulation, based on the Department of Commerce data, graphically reveals the picture:POST WAR CAPITAL ACCUMULATION(billions of Dollars) Gross Private DomesticInvestmentNetForeignInvestmentTotal PrivateGross CapitalFormation1946 28.7 4.6 33.31947 30.2 8.9 39.11948 42.1 1.9 45.01949 33.0 0.4 33.41950 est.* 46.0–2.0 44.0POSTWAR TOTAL181.013.8194.8*Based on estimates for first and second quarters of 1950as contained in August 1950 Survey of Current Business.Thus, in the five postwar years American capitalists have accumulated on gross basis about 195 billion dollars, or an average of 39 billion dollars annually. This represents about 16 per cent of the postwar annual gross national product, a truly staggering percentage, especially when we remember that this growth in capital accumulation occurred with the economy already operating at peak levels due to the war."
}
|
{
"content": "If we wish to measure the net addition to private capital formation (i.e., the net additions to plant, equipment, construction, and business inventories, or constant capital as Marx would have put it), we have to subtract the postwar consumption of capital from gross private domestic investment. This is a field in which the experts always disagree as it involves depreciation, treatment of business reserves and accounting practices. It is clear that the maximum it can be, using the Department of Commerce figures, is the difference between what is termed “net national product” and “gross national product,” or about $83 billion. This would mean an average postwar annual capital consumption of over $16 billion, which appears to be excessive, and is accounted for not only by the rapid amortisation that was permitted of wartime plants but by the inclusion of “statistical discrepancies” and other uncertain quantities in the figures. It is noteworthy, however, that even on a net basis without any adjustment the annual rate of capital investment in the postwar period is 10 per cent, a rate that has not taken place in peacetime since the 1920’s. With proper adjustments, the percentage of net capital formation to net national product would appear to be about 12 per cent annually, which even exceeds the period 1919-1923, the five years following World War I.All current reports testify to this accumulation of capital, the material base for American imperialism. For example, a report of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the second quarter of 1956, which is summarized in The New York Times of October 12, states “that the net working capital of United States corporations reached $73,800,000,000 at the end of June.” No wonder, then, that a National Association of Manufacturers analysis of the postwar financing of business, the findings of which are summarized in The New York Times of October 16, is able to state: “Retained earnings were an important source of new capital,” although this admission is then qualified, “but this resulted from a relatively low level of dividends rather than from high profits.” We would not expect the NAM ever to admit that business is making “high profits,” but without passing judgment on current arguments between management and stockholders as to the proper distribution of profits, the fact of the matter is that American business has never accumulated such profits as it has in the postwar period.It is precisely the record accumulation of capital that makes so interesting the figures for the “net foreign investment” component of national product. Net foreign investment represents the net changes in claims against foreign countries and is affected principally by the net private balance of foreign trade and the net flow of long-term capital abroad. Thus, in the words of the August 1950 Survey of Current Business, “The negative balance of net foreign investment – arising from the substantial excess of Government grants over the current export surplus – remained for the second quarter of the year at approximately $2 billion, at an annual rate.”While perhaps too much significance should not be attributed to the absolute figures, the trend – rapidly accelerating after the end of the war through 1947 and rapidly reversing itself from 1943 to the present – portrays the entire tragedy of modern capitalism in the constriction of the market and a paucity of opportunities for profitable foreign investment of surplus capital. The most recent figures on the net outflow of private long-term capital show the pathetically low levels to which American imperialism has sunk (from the September 1950 issue of the Survey of Current Business):NET OUTFLOW OF PRIVATE LONG-TERM CAPITAL(Millions of Dollars) IIIQuarter 1949192 IVQuarter 1949147IQuarter 1950227IIQuarter 1950 76TOTAL642In other words, a mere 14 million dollars represents the total net export of capital by American imperialism during the past year. For the same period, the net outflow of Government long-term capital amounted to $162 million, or 25 per cent of the private total. Even on a gross basis, discounting the total inflow of capital into America from abroad, the private total for the past year is only $1,434,000,000.With capital accumulation proceeding at the all-time record rates described above, it is clear that the point where the American economy would be choked by surplus capital was rapidly being approached. The Point Four program, in particular, has been designed to establish a climate favorable to the investment of American capital abroad, but Truman has turned out to be just as fortunate as Roosevelt in the matter of having an aggressive foreign imperialism turn up at just the right time to make all sections of the American bourgeoisie unite in supporting an expanding program.War outlays will more than substitute for the inadequacies of the Point Four program. They will relieve a number of economic and political pressures, although in turn creating others. Just how high they will go remains to be seen, but Secretary of the Navy Matthews is reported in The New York Times of October 13 as saying, “The cost of operating the national military establishment alone next year might exceed this year’s entire national budget: That would be more $42,000,000,000.” There will, of course, be differences of opinion within the ruling class as to the degree of preparation that is required. And it makes quite a difference to many industries and many sections of the capitalist class whether, say, 10 per cent or 25 per cent of the national product is devoted to direct war outlays."
}
|
{
"content": "An interesting statement of the perspective involved was made recently by Francis Adams Truslow, president of the New York Curb Exchange, as reported in The New York Times of September 23: “This war, or time of preparation, is not a specific all-out effort, but is perhaps almost a new way of living which we must endure indefinitely.” (My italics – T.N.V.) It should not escape our attention that this “new way of living” will operate on a world scale and that it is only another name for what we have called the Permanent War Economy. Its nature and impact are of the greatest importance, but will require a separate article or articles to analyze in any meaningful form.T.N. VanceTop of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 11.8.2008"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyStalin Orders Labor PeonageThe Second of a Series of Articles on Russia(January 1941)From Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 4, 27 January 1941, p. 4.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).On May 28, June 26 and July 10, 1940, Stalin’s Council of Peoples’ Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Communist Party issued three decrees which subject the workers of Russia to a vicious slavery. These decrees represent the first fruits for the Russian workers of Stalin’s debacle in Finland, and the alliance with Hitler fascism. The First DecreeThe first of these decrees, that of foremen in most of the heavy indirect equivalent in every sense of a superintendent in a capitalist factory. He is to be considered the leader in that portion of the shop over which he has jurisdiction. He has full power in regard to the work assigned to him and bears complete responsibility for the carrying out of this work. The workers will now receive their orders through the foreman exclusively. The foreman now has the power to hire and fire all workmen, with the approval of the head of the department in question. The foreman is given the power to punish workers guilty of interfering with labor discipline. He pays out the wages of the workers. The foreman controls production and changes in production. He is expected to see to it that his workers are properly placed, given the proper tools, and properly instructed so as to produce the maximum amount possible.Since the foreman is now to occupy such an important position in Russia, he is to be chosen from among engineers, technicians, or highly qualified workmen. As a reward for administering Stalin’s whip over the workers, the wages of foremen were raised, starting June 1, so as to be higher than the average wage of qualified workmen. This means, at the very least, a doubling of wages for foremen. Already functioning foremen, without the necessary technical education, as well as newly appointed foremen, must pass a test given by the Committee of Attestations. In the usual propaganda blast which accompanied this decree, it is indicated that those previously in positions of management were distinguished by a lack of culture and general ignorance. “Proletarian origin” will no longer be a major qualification, or indeed a recommendation, for holding a managerial position, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Now the heads of departments and factory directors, as well as the practical workers without formal education, will respond to this decree remains to be seen, but there are already signs of discord and protest. The Second DecreeThe second decree, that of June 26, is the most drastic of all. To make it more palatable, it was issued at the initiative of the Central Council of Trade Unions of the USSR. A very important part of the decree is that which institutes a general wage cut amongst all workers of more than 15 percent. This is done not by directly cutting the amount of rubles which one Russian worker gets, but by lengthening the working day. Work is now organized on the basis of a seven day week, instead of a six day week. Hours of work per working day are lengthened from seven to eight hours, in all cases where the working day was formerly seven hours. This covers the overwhelming majority of workers. Those previously working six hours must now work seven hours, while employees of institutions and persons reaching the age of 16 who had previously worked six hours must now work eight hours. In all cases, of course, while the hours of work are increased, the wage remains the same.More important, however, than the wage cut in the decree of June 26 is the remainder of the decree which establishes complete industrial peonage. Workers are now absolutely forbidden to leave their jobs without authorization, or to move from one job to another. Permission for leaving or changing jobs can be granted only by the special authorization of a factory director. If a worker violates this provision, he can be sentenced by the People’s Court to a prison term of from two to four months. If the violation is called an illegal absence, the previous penalty for illegal absence – compulsory dismissal from the job – is supplanted by the new penalty: compulsory labor at the place of employment for a term of six months at a 25 percent wage reduction. And, typical of all Soviet decrees, factory directors who do not properly enforce these provisions will themselves be hold responsible.The lengthening of the work day is justified by references to the dangerous international situation and the threat of war. But it is nowhere indicated that this lengthening of the work day is to be temporary. The binding of workers to the factory, coming on top of the previous introduction of the internal passport system, is aimed at reducing the labor turnover in Soviet industry. The average Russian worker changes his job at least once a year. This is merely a reflection of the terrible living conditions obtaining in most Russian towns and factories. In addition, many of those workers guilty of “illegal absence” were Communist Party members absent on meetings of one kind or another. Consequently, the plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party held in July, 1940, in order to enforce the decree of June 28 amongst Communist Party workers, decreed that there were to be no meetings or conferences of any kind during the working hours of the factory! Nothing, absolutely nothing, is to, interfere with the worker’s performance on his job. The Third Decree"
}
|
{
"content": "The third decree, that of July 10, has to do with output of poor quality and bad performance on the job. Such cases are to be considered wreckage, and therefore a crime against the State. Factory directors and engineers will be held responsible and are subject to prison sentences of from five to eight years in case established standards are not lived up to in, any respect whatsoever.Closely related to these decrees are two others, one of which establishes the penalty for “petty theft” (regardless of the amount) or “acts of hooliganism” at one year in jail; the other specifically applies the industrial peonage decrees to the factory directors, and other managerial officials. No one employed in a factory in any capacity is now permitted to leave that factory, without the consent of Stalin, or one of his hirelings. Life in Stalin’s “paradise” will be something like the following for the average person: He attends school until the age of 14 (our equivalent of free secondary education, and free higher education has been abolished by a more recent decree); from the age of 14 to 18 he will be drafted for compulsory vocational training in mechanical lines which will serve the war machine; at the age of 18 he enters upon five years compulsory military training; at the age of 23, unless he enters permanent service in the armed forces, he will be assigned to work in any occupation in any location that pleases the dictate of the Kremlin. All this, of course, is in direct violation of Stalin’s own constitution of 1936.When assigned to some factory or establishment, regardless of his own inclination or family ties, the Soviet slave is now bound to the establishment for the rest of his working days. If, of course, the masters in the Kremlin wish to change his place of servitude, they may do so without consulting the worker himself. The result is, therefore, that the Russian worker today does not even have the same rights that the Russian serf had. The serf, at least, while treated as a thing, whose function was simply to produce enough for his lord and master to live on, was bound to the soil and could not be moved about at the whim of his master.The immediate reason for these decrees of industrial peonage is to be found in the visible breakdown of the Russian system of economic planning. The only way that Stalin knows to increase production is to command slave labor to produce or else. Whether these decrees will increase production or not, remains to be seen. If they do not, it will only hasten the day when Hitler decides to take over the direction of Soviet economy himself. If they do bring results, which is most unlikely, they can only serve to increase the thickness of the chains which bind the Russian worker in servitude today. In my next article in this series, I shall try to show the extent of the breakdown in Soviet economic planning and the reasons for this breakdown, for it must never be forgotten that the fundamental reasons for Stalin’s present policy are to be found in the internal weaknesses of Stalin’s regime. Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 21.11.2012"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyEconomic Notes(22 September 1941)From Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 38, 22 September 1941, p. 2.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).The Senate of the United States has outdone the House of Representatives in the race to see which branch of the “people’s” representatives can place the heavier tax burden on the masses. It’s all in a good cause – financing the “war for democracy”’ – so don’t mind if your tax bill is increased from three to seven times next year.The Senate voted to lower exemptions on the income tax from $800 to $750 for single persons and from $2,000 a year to $1,500 a year for married persons. This means that about 6,000,000 more persons – 23,000,000 in all – will have to file an income tax in 1942 if this bill becomes law. It also means higher rates for those earning from $2,000 to $10,000. Altogether, over $300,000,000 will be raised by this device.To show their seriousness in making the poor pay for the bosses’ war, the Senate lowered the excess profits tax almost $70,000,000. It then more than made up for this by raising the ante on excise and miscellaneous taxes some $85,000,000. This was done chiefly by raising the admission tax for amusements from 10 to 15 per cent, doubling the tax on local telephone bills (10 per cent instead of 5), imposing a 10 per cent tax on electric light bulbs, and a new tax on gas and oil appliances was included. The Senate has topped the House by more than $450,000,000 – of which almost 100 per cent falls on those who work for a living.Whether this will satisfy the National Association of Manufacturers, who agitated for a national sales tax and a payroll tax, remains to be seen. It will certainly not meet with favor among the workers. A loud roar of protest from the trade unions can still make Congress retreat a few steps!*Meanwhile profits continue to soar for the big companies under the impetus of huge war orders. The following figures show quite clearly to all except the Congress of the United States that taxes on profits and corporations can still be increased SUBSTANTIALLY without denting profits very much (figures are for the first half of each fiscal year): Profits Before Tax ProvisionsNet ProfitIndustry19411940Pct.Inc.19411940Pct.Inc.Tire and Rubber(5 companies)$50,675,509$15,042,028231$20.501,250$10,476;48096Railroad Equipment(10 companies) 20,323,000 9,203,000120 11,594,000 7,490,01155Automotive Equipment(13 companies) 41,638,000 17,249,000142 11,433,00013,095,00044And this is only a small sample of what goes on every day. The patriotism of the rich thrives on this sort of diet. But what about the rest of us?*The first measures so far taken to prevent inflation remain a farce. Where they amount to anything, they are, as we predicted, further blows at the standard of living of the masses. The 7 p.m. curfew for the purpose of rationing gasoline has not only not reduced the consumption of gas, but available estimates show on increase in the sales of gas stations during the past few weeks.Meanwhile, Henderson’s order setting a price ceiling of 18.9 cents a gallon in the New York area has been honored more in the breach than by observance. This has brought a threat from “Little Flower” LaGuardia to have the mayors of various cities revoke the licenses of those dealers who are raising their prices. The only thing that will prevent a first-rate tempest from blowing up over this first example of what a war economy means is the sudden “discovery” that there are thousands of railroad oil tankers lying idle. The railroads and oil companies, were just having a private feud. The let-the-public-be-damned attitude of big business is due for a small curb in this instance.*On September 1, the new curbs on installment buying – aimed at restricting the purchases of durable consumers’ goods by the low income groups – went into effect. The Federal Reserve Board limited the maximum time for payments to 18 months and increased the down payments substantially in many cases. Sellers of these items report a brisk business; in some cases better than ever. Since the overwhelming majority of the $10,000,000,000 installment business is carried on among the workers and lower middle class, a serious restriction of this form of credit would mean a sharp decline in the standard of living of the masses. At present, the curbs on credit remain a joke – but watch out for the future!*On the organization front the President shuffled his “defense” agencies a bit. A super seven-man board, formally known as the Supply Priorities and Allocations Board, has been set up, charged with the responsibility of supervising the OPM and the other war bureaus. The SPAB is headed by Vice-President Wallace. The other members are: Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox, William S. Knudsen and Sidney Hillman of the OPM, Price Administrator Henderson (who relinquishes his control of civilian supply) and Dollar-a-Year-Man Donald Nelson, who will be the executive director. Thus does Roosevelt hope to remove the conflicts that have been going on in Washington and satisfy the critics of the production program. That this will not do the trick was indicated by the blast from Barney Baruch, chairman of the War Industries Board in World War I, who continues to insist on the necessity for a one-man head.Meanwhile, another Wall Street speculator crashed the Washington dollar-a-year racket with the appointment of Floyd B. Odlum as director of the new Division of Contract Distribution. This replaces the Defense Contract Service and is supposed to see to it that small business gets sub-contracts on the huge war orders that the big corporations are getting and can’t fill. Fat chance! Small business is doomed and the war economy will hasten the process. After all, why should organizations controlled by big business order themselves to split their profits with a lot of little competitors? Monopoly capitalism doesn’t work that way. Not only can’t it create a decent peace economy; it can’t even establish an efficient war economy!*"
}
|
{
"content": "Two developments along Wall Street are worth noting. We are very happy to report that Wendell L. Willkie, the man who made the supreme sacrifice of resigning from the presidency of Commonwealth & Southern to crusade against the dictatorial aims of the New Deal third term, is not doing so badly for himself. After becoming senior partner in the lucrative law firm of Willkie, Owen, Otis & Bailey, this junior partner of the unincorporated firm of Roosevelt & Willkie was elected a director of the Federal Insurance Co. on June 4. Now he is being proposed for a second directorship – this time in the very important firm controlled by the Lehman brothers, known as the Lehman Corp. We are confident that the October 15 meeting of the stockholders of the Lehman Corp. will elect Mr. Willkie a director. Just another example of how it pays to be a public-spirited citizen, provided, of course, you know the right people! Who says this isn’t the land of opportunity?The other interesting development in Wall Street is further evidence of the tremendous opportunities that await the eager and patient youngster of today. The American Telephone & Telegraph Co., a Morgan subsidiary, which has conducted all its financing for the past 30 years through the House of Morgan, has announced that its forthcoming issue of $94,500,000 worth of debentures is to be subject to competitive bidding. Here’s a chance for you to make a million dollars in commission. All you have to do is to submit the lowest bid for handling these bonds. The lowest bidder must get the issue. Then all you have to do is to sell them. The bonds are absolutely gilt-edged. There should be no trouble at all. So far, however, there are only two syndicates in the field; one, a group of 28 powerful investment bankers, headed by Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (Mr. Morgan’s son-in-law is head man in this outfit); the other, one of the largest syndicates every assembled, comprising about 175 investment houses, headed by Halsey, Stuart & Co., Inc., and the Mellon Securities Corp. We are about $94,499,999 short of the required amount, else we would submit a bid. Maybe our readers can help us out.Kidding aside, though, this is important because it shows that all attempts to maintain competition must remain solely between the big capitalists. And it can’t be otherwise, considering the kind of economic system we live under. One more proof of the necessity for socialism! Top of pageVance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageLast updated: 27.1.2013"
}
|
{
"content": "Vance Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main PageFrank DembyAmerica’s War Economy(September 1941)From The New International, Vol. VII No. 8 (Whole No. 57), September 1941, pp. 200–4.Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).AFTER MORE THAN two years of the Second World War, and after more than one year of the “Defense” Program, the single outstanding fact which emerges in any study of the economic situation in the United States is that America has entered upon a period of war economy. Already, approximately 25 per cent of the national income is being spent for purposes of armament. This amount will steadily increase until, before long, the major proportion of American resources, both human and material, will be devoted to the production of means of destruction. The American public is still almost blissfully unaware of what this will mean in terms of the daily routine of normal life. Rising prices, increased taxes, shortages of consumers goods, fast-increasing government controls – all, however, point to the inescapable fact that the “honeymoon” period is over. From now on, as the war economy develops further, the mass of the people will become well aware of what a war economy means. The standard of living will go down. The routine of normal life will be seriously interrupted due to the increasing dislocations produced by the insatiable appetite of the war machine. The atmosphere of crisis will become chronic, for war is but an expression of far-reaching social crisis.The developing war economy brings in its train a series of important questions – political, social and economic in nature. I am particularly concerned, in this article, with some of the economic questions raised by the entrance of the United States into a period of war economy. Two basic questions immediately arise: Who pays for the war economy and how do they pay? Who profits from the war economy and how do they profit? These questions, in turn, give rise to a third basic summary question: What will be the effect of the war economy, in its short-term and long-run aspects, on the future development of American economy?Early this year, in one of his fireside chats, the President warned the people that they would have to expect sacrifices. While the full implications of these sacrifices remain to be unfolded, the broad outlines, as well as some of the details, are already quite clear. The 1940 and 1941 revenue bills, for example, unmistakably reveal the intention of the government to make the working masses bear the brunt of the burden of financing the imperialist war effort of the United States. The Tax BillAt this writing, the final form of the 1941 revenue bill has not yet been established. The bill is “in conference,” as a result of several very important changes made by the Senate in the House version. However, it appears that the more drastic Senate version will more nearly approximate the final form of the Bill than that of the House. This will mean a sharp increase in the income tax on the lower income brackets, for the Senate has lowered the exemption for married persons from $2,000 (until 1940 it was $2,500) to $1,500, and for single individuals from $800 (until 1940 it was $1,000) to $750. By this measure 5,000,000 persons who never previously filed a federal income tax will now have to do so. Due to exemptions, it is expected that only about half this number will actually have to pay an income tax in 1942. Altogether, more than 20,000,000 people will now pay an income tax. This does not appear to be very drastic when it is recalled that about 60,000,000 people in the United States receive some form of income. But it must be remembered that the income tax was originally hailed as a progressive form of taxation because it was presumably based on ability to pay.An income tax which broadens the base as the current bill proposes, begins to violate the “principle” of ability to pay. It definitely imposes severe hardships on those who can least afford to pay. Consider, for example, the case of an unmarried worker making $20 a week ($1,000 a year) – and there are many in this category. Before 1940 he did not pay any income tax. Under the 1940 act, he paid an income tax of $4.00. Under the Senate proposal for the 1941 act, this worker, who has great difficulty maintaining a bare subsistence level, will have to pay an income tax of $21 – more than one week’s pay and an increase of 425 per cent in his income tax. A married worker with no dependents earning $2,000 a year previously paid no income tax. Now he will have to pay an income tax of $42. Remember that this is only the income tax. The TNEC has estimated that approximately 25 per cent of the income of those in the lowest income brackets is already taxed indirectly through various forms of excise taxes.The indirect tax burden is also be to increased – by more than one billion dollars. This will add tremendously to the tax load borne by the working class and the middle classes. Virtually the same percentage of income received will be paid by the worker and the millionaire, when all forms of taxation are considered! Who Will Really Pay"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.