Elizabeth Kirkpatrick Dilling.

The red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots online

. (page 10 of 59)
Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 10 of 59)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

for there. I regret that the Convention did not see its way clear to affiliate
with the Third International without qualification."

While the 1920 National Convention report (before referred to) "soft
pedaled" its revolutionary program for expediency's sake saying it was
opposed to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the form of Soviet," it at
the same time passed a resolution reading as follows: "Resolved, That this
convention favor the election of representatives to all legislative bodies by
industries as well as by geographical units," which is an endorsement of the
Soviet form of government, which is "based upon territorial units and repre-
sentation through industries" (Lusk Report).

Press reports of the Socialist International congress held at Paris, France,
Aug., 1933, stated that Maynard C. Krueger advocated the arming of the
proletariat for violent revolution and that the American delegation was the
most militant of those present. Aug. 21, 1933, the Chicago Tribune reported:
"Comrade Levinson of the executive body will tell the congress how the new
deal is going to lead to Socialism in America."

Russia is honored as the first Socialist country. Its name is now the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (U. S. S. R.) It is held up as the example of
Socialism in action. Leaders of both Communist and Socialist Parties state
that their principles and aims are identical but that they differ as to choice
of leadership and tactics.

The Socialist Party of America is not an American political party in the
sense that the Democratic and Republican Parties are. Its control lies not
solely with Americans but also with alien members in America as well as
abroad. The opening statement in the Constitution of the Socialist Party
(also Lusk Report, p. 563) says: "The Socialist Party of the U. S. is the
political expression of the interests of the workers in this country and is part

Socialist: Party (and the New Deal) 73

of an international working class movement. . . . The workers must wrest the
control of the government from the hands of the masters and use its powers
in the upbuilding of the new social order the cooperative commonwealth. . . .
To accomplish this aim it is necessary that the working class be powerfully
and solidly organized also in the economic field to struggle for the same
Revolutionary goal."

The Preamble to the Socialist Party Constitution adopted in 1919 says:
"The Socialist party seeks to organize the working class for independent
action on the political field not merely for the betterment of their condition,
but also and above all with the revolutionary aim of putting an end to the
exploitation or class rule."

When the U. S. declared war, the Socialist Party convention at St. Louis,
April 7-14, 1917, adopted a lengthy disloyal resolution favoring seditious
activities, saying: "The Socialist Party of the U. S. in the present grave
crisis solemnly declares its allegiance to the principles of internationalism
and working class solidarity the world over, and proclaims its unalterable

opposition to the war just declared by the government of the United States

As against the false doctrine of national patriotism, we uphold the idea of
international working class solidarity. We brand the declaration of war by
our government as a crime." (The U. S. Govt. was finally forced to jail
many Socialists whose seditious activities were camouflaged as "peace" work.)
"The acute situation created by the war calls for an even more vigorous
prosecution of the class struggle and we recommend to the workers and pledge
ourselves to the following course of action: Continuous and active public
opposition to the war through demonstrations, mass petitions and all other
means in our power. Unyielding opposition to all proposed legislation for
military or industrial conscription. . . . Vigorous resistance to all reactional
measures such as censorship Oif the press and mails, restriction of the right
of free speech, assemblage and organization, or compulsory arbitration and
limitation of the right to strike. Consistent propaganda against military train-
ing and militaristic teaching in the public schools. . . . We recommend the
National Executive Committee extend and improve propaganda among
women." One delegate is reported to have said "If I knew we could sway
the boys when they got guns to use them against the capitalist class I would
be for universal training."

The 1932 Socialist Party election platform similarly called for total dis-
armament of the United States, no deportation or barring of alien Reds, free
speech, free press, and "civil liberties" (for revolutionaries), recognition of
militant bloody Soviet Russia, etc.

The New York Call, June 28, 1921, printed the following Resolution,
passed by the Socialist Party, which was offered by Morris Hillquit: "Re-
solved that the incoming national executive committee be instructed to make
a careful survey of all radical and labor organizations in the country with
the view of ascertaining their strengths, disposition and readiness to coop-
erate with the Socialist Movement upon a platform not inconsistent with that
of the party, and on a plan which will preserve the integrity and autonomy
of the Socialist Party." This was headed "Text of Hillquit Resolution that
Ends Isolation of Socialist Party." With this, the "boring from within" other

74 The Red Network

parties began in earnest. (See under Internationals; also August Claessens,
Victor Berger, Debs, etc.)

Socialist Party National Hdqts., 549 Randolph St., Chicago.


(See page 256 for facsimile of letter.)

The average brainy American business man, whose capable concentrated
efforts have raised the American standard of living to a preeminent place in
the world's history, feels that he is too busy running his own business to
bother with politics. He wants " George" to do it and a Red "George" has
been working to do "it" and do him out of his business for a long time.

Only, perhaps, when Red George and his political cronies step in to com-
pletely run his business for him will he awaken to find time to attend to

Mr. Successful American bountifully endows Colleges teaching Socialism
and supports ministers teaching Socialism, but objects to voting for a "crack-
brained radical" on the Socialist ticket, as the radicals know. So they arrange
matters so that he votes for the "crack-brained" Socialist on a conservative
ticket. The Conference for Progressive Political Action (see) since 1922 has
been successfully boring from within to "steal" elections for radical candi-
dates. They are organizing more energetic and deceptive programs for future
elections right now.

Americans who are alarmed at the present Socialist administration,
labeled as "Democratic," may easily turn out "Democrats" and vote in
Republicans at the next election, but how many of the elected "Republican"
officials will be radicals of the same stripe?

Many of the radicals now making this Democratic administration a Social-
ist one only left the Republican Party during the last campaign at the invita-
tion of Mr. Roosevelt, their kindred soul. While the radicals have a keenly
organized, well planned program, American conservatives have practically
none. If they wait until election day, they may find themselves in the pre-
dicament of having a choice between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee,
between Socialists, Communists, Democratic-Socialists, or Republican-Social-
ists, because the radicals are also active within both conservative parties and
"practical", short-sighted politicians seem to believe that by compromising
with them and pampering them they are increasing the Party's hopes of
success. "Marx versus Washington" will be the real issue in the next election,
and this issue transcends former partisanship. If the fight were clear-cut,
Americanism would win with the people hands down, but a fight with radicals
is a fight with snipers. They do not fly their true colors willingly.

The only propaganda now dinned into an American's ears is that, because
of "emergency," or "collapse of capitalism," he must either accept Socialistic
measures or have Communist dictatorship thrust upon him. (This is Socialist
propaganda.) Why does almost no one propagandize a return to Wash-
ingtonian principles which built this country's greatness? Bureaucracy and
the load of governmental taxation have been steadily increasing of late years
under Socialist manipulation, until under depressed trade conditions business
came nearly to a standstill. Now, inside of a few months, more billions in

The New Deal and Roosevelt Appointees 75

taxation have been heaped upon American taxpayers than our share of the
cost of the World War. How many years will it take to pay off the present
load of indebtedness which this administration has only started to incur?
During this process the American taxpayer is apt to lose his property as the
Socialists intend that he shall. Between forfeited loans and heavy taxation,
it is hoped to confiscate farms, homes, banks and utilities by legal means.

As Communist V. F. Calverton says in "Recovery Through Revolution"
(see) : . . . "what with the state practically supporting and subsidizing the
industrial and financial set-up of the nation by means of monies afforded
by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, in time, if such subsidies con-
tinue, and the railroads and industries which have accepted them cannot
meet the obligations that they necessitate, there will be no other recourse
than for the State to take them over." (Our "peaceful revolution.")

Wm. E. Sweet, whom the Conference for Progressive Political Action
claimed credit for electing Governor of Colorado (See "Who's Who"), is
one of Pres. Roosevelt's radical appointees in the Public Relations Division
of the N. R. A. He was very prompt in having published in the Daily News,
Oct. 30, 1933, his protest against a "white" Daily News editorial of Oct. 26.
His was a lengthy letter sent from Washington, D. C., in which he said:
"The editorial 'Back to the Constitution' printed on the front page of the
Daily News, Oct. 26, would be highly important if it voiced the sentiments
of any considerable inarticulate body of citizens as the Daily News seems
to think it does. . . . Has the time come in America when a man may not do
as he pleases with his oil? It has. But this is clearly unconstitutional. . . .
The Constitution was based on security and privilege for the owners of
property, but this is no reason for confusing it with holy writ. ... If these
revolutionary changes in our economic system work out satisfactorily, they
will be found to be constitutional. . . . When former Pres. Hoover made his
concluding speech in Madison Square Garden he said: 'This campaign is
more than a contest between two parties, it is more than a contest between
two men, it is a contest between two fundamentally different theories of
government.' Mr. Hoover rightly appraised the issues of the campaign. The
people have placed their seal of approval for the present on the theory of
government advanced by Franklin D. Roosevelt and they are following his
leadership with loud acclaim. As yet there is no sign of any diminution in
his popularity." (?)

"The radicals you complain of have been chosen by the President. He
may not agree with all their theories but he would rather have their counsel,
noise and all, than that of the traditionalists, 'money changers,' and reaction-
aries who surrounded and dominated his predecessor. Wm. E. Sweet, Wash-
ington, D. C."

Senator Warren R. Austin of Vermont said, (Sept. 18, 1933, Chgo. Amer-
ican) : "Only one step further need be taken to destroy the Constitution and
overthrow the government, namely, to remold the judiciary." And Senator
Henry D. Hatfield of W. Va. declared, (Chgo. Tribune, Oct. 20, 1933):
"President Roosevelt's executive order threatening N. R. A. violators with
$500 fines and six months' imprisonment means that economic serfdom has
become a grim reality in the United States."

76 The Red Network

The attitude of radicals with regard to the recent U. S. Supreme Court
decision in the Minnesota mortgage moratorium case is clearly indicated in
the following excerpts from the January 18, 1934 "World Tomorrow":


"The five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Minnesota mortgage moratorium case enormously increases the
possibility of revolution in this country without another civil war. If
the principles enunciated therein are incorporated in forthcoming decisions,
the NRA, the AAA and other aspects of the New Deal are likely to be
upheld. In this event the creditor and property-owning class will lose
billions and billions of dollars. The validation of recent state and national
legislation by the Supreme Court will result in the redistribution of wealth
on an almost unimaginably colossal scale.

"The law under review authorized owners, when about to lose their
property through foreclosure, to apply in court for a two-year extension
of time in which to redeem their holdings. The invalidating decree of the
district court was reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the
latter 's decision was upheld at Washington." (Chief Justice Hughes and
Justices Brandeis, Cardozo, Roberts, and Stone [radicals, three of whom
were appointed by Pres. Hoover], against Justices Butler, McReynolds,
Sutherland, and Van Devanter [Constitutionalists] ).

"Pacifists who are struggling for radical changes in the present social
order have reason to be encouraged by the Court's decision in the Minne-
sota case. Once more it has been demonstrated that the Supreme Court
tends to follow public opinion. Progress has often been slowed down,
but the highest tribunal of the land is not likely to become a permanent
barrier to revolutionary change. As a last resort its powers may be shorn
or its decision changed by increasing the size of the Court and the appoint-
ment of new Justices who are in sympathy with radical legislation."
This last brazenly gives voice to a radical threat that has been propa-
gandized under cover ever since Pres. Roosevelt took office and has reference
to the emergency power which the President has of increasing the number
of Supreme Court Justices. For example, it is alleged that in case of any
adverse decision, say 5 to 4, against any phase of the "New Deal," the Presi-
dent will appoint two more radicals (possibly Felix Frankfurter and Donald
Richberg, or at least men of their persuasion) to the Supreme Bench, insur-
ing a reversal or favorable decision of 6 to 5, in favor of the proposition
when it again comes up for action.

In passing, it should be noted that Pres. Roosevelt's "first assistant,"
Secy. Ickes, served on the National Campaign Executive Committee when
Chief Justice Hughes ran for President in 1916.

Norman Thomas in "Student Outlook" for Nov., 1933 (p. 5) proceeds
to tell how N. R. A. must be turned into permanent Socialism. He says:
"Only social ownership of natural resources and the great means of produc-
tion and distribution, their management according to plan for the use of
the great company of people and not for the profit of any" (true enough)

The New Deal and Roosevelt Appointees 77

"can fulfill the promise of N. R. A. . . . The codes must not only be improved
but correlated under a general economic plan.

"We can scarcely have experts plan for us unless we own the things
which are vital to this plan. We must acquire rapidly our banking system,
our coal, oil, electric power and railroads. Speedily we must add other nat-
ural resources and basic industries and utilities. We should socialize market-
ing machinery of what farmers buy and sell. The milk situation, for instance,
cannot be solved without socially owned milk distributing companies in place
of the present trusts. Taxation of incomes and inheritances in a transitional
period should meet most costs of government, though the land values tax
can and should be used to end private landlordism. A capital levy must be
employed to help reduce debt, care for the unemployed, and facilitate the
transfer of the industries to be socialized. In general, under present con-
ditions, compensation for socialized industries usually in notes or bonds
of these industries plus such taxation as I have outlined is likely to prove
more equitable and practicable than piecemeal confiscation. For the imme-
diate present we need a far bolder plan of unemployment relief and public
works, including housing. Such a program plus social insurance will aid not
only in terms of social justice but in economic recovery by its help in redis-
tributing national income a little more equitably.

"No program can be carried out merely by wishing. It requires effective
organization. . . . The party which represents the workers is still to be built.
It is that party which the Socialist Party wishes to help to create or become.
There is an unfortunate tendency among radicals to spend in their own dis-
cussions more time on an attempt to prophesy the degree of violence which
will bring about a desirable social revolution than on working on a dynamic
organization without which ballots or bullets are equally futile."

This, then, is the Red program for confiscating private property and
American liberty "under present conditions" and under the flag of patriotism.
Later on well that is still another story.

It is significant that Socialist Basil Manly (See "Who's Who"), long a
noisy voice for public ownership of Muscle Shoals and kindred projects, who
in 1927, announced (See People's Legislative Service) that proper strategy in
the 1928 elections would secure radicals a real voice in the choice of President
in 1932, is now Pres. Roosevelt's appointee as chairman of the Federal Power
Commission, in charge of these very projects, now threatening extermination
of the privately-owned competing power industries and saddling taxpayers
with the extravagant expense of political ownership.

Roosevelt, in his Detroit campaign speech, frankly told the American
people he was as "radical as the Federal Council of Churches" (see), which
meant a great deal more than the average person realized.

John Boettiger, Washington correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, Oct.
1, 1933, wrote: "One recovery policy seems to reduce while another pro-
motes larger production. Millions are spent to take farm lands out of
production. Millions are spent to put farm lands into production. Food and
cotton are destroyed, while many people hunger and go ill-clothed. Prices
are sky-rocketed and people are told to buy more. Water power is planned
to take the place of steam while thousands of coal miners are jobless. Water-

78 The Red Network

ways are projected while the railroads go bankrupt and thousands of rail
workers go jobless. . . . For all this the tax payers bear the brunt at both ends,
paying processing taxes to pay the farmers for destroying produce; paying
for the dole to feed the hungry ; paying for power plants whether their com-
munities benefit or not; paying more and more taxes to support the ever
growing bureaucracy, which invokes all the schemes at Washington.

"These paradoxes and many others are held inevitable in a government
which almost overnight has essayed to control farming, industry, finance and
transportation, which is starting to spend three billions of public moneys
for a thousand and one widely diversified projects, most of which are leading
the government into endeavors to paternalism, government-in-business and

"In a single year the consuming Americans must pay additional taxes
aggregating approximately $364,500,000 for farm products. That money is
to be paid to farmers in return for their agreement to curtail wheat acreages,
plow-up cotton, send pigs and sows to slaughter, cut production of tobacco,
butter, and cheese, to raise prices paid to farmers who are accused of increas-
ing productively to get the federal funds.

"Reclamation to make more arable land, and power projects for more
electrical power than required, thus far approved by Secretary Ickes call
for the expenditure of $166,000,000 . . . will compete with steam produced
power for the cities of the northwest, and will drive more nails into the
coffin of feeble old King Coal.

"The Tennessee valley authority dream of Pres. Roosevelt and Sen.
George Norris of Nebraska with $50,000,000 to spend this year, is a com-
bination of these described paradoxes, bringing new lands into cultivation,
creating new water power where there is insufficient demand for what is
available." This, of course, will tend to force privately-owned utilities into
ruin by governmental competition and thus into political ownership.

The Chicago Tribune of- Sept. 16, 1933 says: "In the rate structure
announced by David E. Lilienthal, director of the Tennessee experiment in
charge of power, there is no provision for repaying to the federal treasury a
net loss of $43,590,619 which the hydro-electric power plant at Muscle
Shoals already has cost the tax payer. Besides waiving past expenditures as
money already 'gone over the dam,' Director Lilienthal has computed his
rates which undersell existing commercial companies by 75 percent on a
quasi-socialistic basis ... by disregarding the original investment, making
no provision for profits, avoiding taxes and computing interest at the low
rate available to the government, the Muscle Shoals officials have given
themselves a 75 percent advantage in rates over commercial companies. . . .
These rate schedules . . . are being held up as models to commercial com-
panies which have to meet all these costs."

Radical "Unity" of Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago, says (Sept. 4,
1933) : "One has only to scan the newspapers these days to comprehend the
stupendous magnitude of what is going forward in this country. . . . No such
vast undertaking of industrial planning has ever been attempted in the world
outside of Russia. ... It also means that success can only lead to new and
final disaster, unless the administration sweeps straight on into Socialism."

The New Deal and Roosevelt Appointees 7

The subject of Curtis Reese's lecture for Jan. 7, 1934 was "Why Social
Radicals Should Support the New Deal" (see "Who's Who").

The communist Daily Worker, Oct. 6, 1933, under the heading "A
Socialist Invitation," said: "Yesterday Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of
the United States, was invited to join the Socialist Party. . . . Over ten thou-
sand New York workers heard Abraham Cahan, one of the oldest leaders of
the Socialist Party, and editor of the Socialist paper, the ' Forward/ invite him
in. Here are his actual words set down for every worker to see: 'The NRA
has been handled in a democratic way, and the President has earned the
gratitude of every thinking man in the country ... on the basis of his work
so far he really should be a Socialist.' On one side of Cahan sat Norman
Thomas. On the other sat the Tammany Police Chief. . . . This was the set-
ting for the invitation to Roosevelt to join the party of Eugene Victor Debs.
Thomas seconded the invitation with the typical Thomas reservations.
Thus the Thomas 'left-wing' and the Hillquit-Cahan 'right-wing' of the
Socialist Party joined hands. . . . Cahan's invitation is only the logical cul-
mination of the congratulatory visit that Thomas and Hillquit paid Roose-
velt at the White House in April. The Socialist leaders have looked
Roosevelt over. And they find him good. . . Cahan sees in Roosevelt a fellow-
socialist. He is right. They are both socialists of the same calibre. Of the
calibre of Hindenburg, the fascist butcher." (Pres. Roosevelt sent his
condolences to Mrs. Morris Hillquit when Hillquit died recently.)

This last is typical of the insults Communists and Socialists hurl at each
other. No insult could be more far fetched than the epithet of "fascist" or
anti-Red applied to Socialists, whose leaders serve on the selfsame anti-
fascist committees with Communists; but it conveys the intended meaning
that the Socialism of Socialists is a farce, that only the Socialism of the
Communist Party is the "pure goods".

Why this continual horse play between Red parties with identical prin-
ciples and objectives? Were it entirely due to bitter Party rivalry and jeal-
ousy the Party leaders would not be on the close friendly terms that they
are. The Garland Fund illustrates their chummy interlocking cooperation.
The "hymn of hate" publicity policy is undoubtedly mutually understood.

Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 10 of 59)