Copyright
Elizabeth Kirkpatrick Dilling.

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

. (page 13 of 59)
Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 13 of 59)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Americans had already ruined it.

I wondered if Mr. Wallace were unaware of the fact that America and its
capitalism is the greatest success in history, that the "rugged individualism"
of our American pioneering ancestors "chiseled" from the forests of a vast
wilderness, no richer than similar vast wildernesses in South America, Africa
and Asia, which remain, however, wildernesses today, a nation which is the
envy of every nation on earth, and this in the space of only about 150 years.
The freely released energies of those who fled the autocracies of European
countries created the miracle of modern times America.

I wondered how Mr. Wallace could call America a failure unless per-
chance he had never seen the rest of the world to draw his comparisons.
Anyone who has traveled over the world knows that the greatest part of
its surface is still untouched by "Capitalism" or "rugged individualism," that
its minerals lie unmined, that the feet of countless millions go bare, that
mud or straw huts and a few rags remain in style century after century,
for the majority of human beings, that insect-bitten, comfortless poverty
on a bare subsistence level reigns unchallenged over the vast stretches of
Africa, Asia, South America, and China, where famines also regularly kill
off millions, that these millions never experience depressions because they
never have any prosperity. They cannot drop because they remain down.

Enroute to the Orient last year when I facetiously jibed a kerosene lamp
salesman about his business being out of date, he came back with very exact
figures on the millions of inhabitants in India, Asia, Africa, Pacific Islands,
etc., who have never had gas or electricity, could not afford it if it were
available, who live countless miles from the few foreign settlements where
it is available, and are now using far more primitive lighting devices than
kerosene lamps. He assured me that his business was in its infancy!

City Americans naturally look upon those who have had their gas and
electricity shut off during the depression as sufferers. Yet our own parents
had none. My mother, during Christmas holidays, was reminescing with an
old friend about their youthful days in Ohio. She recalled the horse and
buggy days. He, a prominent Chicago physician, said: "I go you one better.
Remember you lived in northern Ohio, which with its lake port, Cleveland,
developed ahead of Southern Ohio where I lived. I travelled by ox cart
at a time when you, in northern Ohio, had advanced to horses and carriages."

To "rugged individualism" and capitalism we owe machines, road and
transportation developments, and countless other comforts unknown in any
previous age.

If capitalism and capitalists are a blight to humanity, then a land like
Egypt where its sore-eyed fellaheens, who live in mud huts, till the fields
with the same style crooked stick plows, raise water from the Nile with the
same old water wheels, and sail the Nile in the same old model dahabeahs as
are pictured on the walls of King Tut's tomb which was sealed centuries
ago should be a happy spot. But the happiest event which has befallen



Capitalism Hewer and "Chiseler" 95

Egypt in many centuries came with the British "imperialism" and "capitalism"
which built the Assuan Dam to control Nile floods, increase tillable land,
and prevent famines. While the dam may have been built for the profit of
British capitalism, it has, no less, profited the Egyptians by filling their
stomachs with food.

If capitalism is "greed" and a blight to humanity, then why are the
savage and miserable lands which have no capitalism, not blessed? Why is
the standard of living of the whole people in any land raised in proportion
to the success and development of its capitalistic enterprises?

How inconsistently the very people who welcome the advent of a factory
to their home town and mourn its closing as a catastrophe, who glory in the
memory of the $10 per day wages it once paid and the silk shirts, radios and
Fords they were able to buy when capitalism was pulsing with life, who
themselves hope for nothing so much as the legitimate chance to again make
profits, and the sooner the better, will applaud the thrilling experienced
"rabble-rouser," with his ever popular appeals to envy, when he denounces
as the source of all evil the "profit-motive" of the capitalist who built or ran
that factory for their mutual benefit. When he made profits they profited also.

There is, of course, an alternative to the "profit-motive" for spurring
human beings on to perform hard, worrisome, or distasteful labor. It is the
shot gun. As Bernard Shaw put it: "Compulsory labor with death, the final
punishment, is the keystone of socialism." Business men are not apt to volun-
tarily get too "tired" working for the State, nor are laborers on public works
noted for their over exertion. Try calling on a politician early in the day.
"He is not down yet" is what you will probably be told. We may reward or
punish people to make them work, "crack down" on them, employ a G. P. U.
spy system to enforce Socialism, or return to the American Capitalistic prin-
ciple of production for use and for profit.

A capitalist business must efficiently produce goods for use or it can make
no profit. State works on the other hand, need not be either useful, necessary,
or efficiently run, since the tax payers pay the bills out of the proceeds from
private efficiency. Even the U. S. Post Office piles up a large yearly deficit
(112 million dollars in 1933). Capitalism is a system of spending which
pumps profits into every part of society. Buying goods is spending for the
products of industry, while buying investments is spending to maintain and
develop industry. Even savings are loaned out to be spent for home building
and business enterprise, or else the banker realizes no profit. New investment
means new industry, new employment, new spending, new investing, and so
on around the circle again.

Have you ever had your wants completely satisfied? Other Americans
have not had theirs satisfied either. There is no limit to new wants, new devel-
opments, new possibilities, within America itself, while other lands have been
scarcely touched with modern equipment. Wash bowls and pitchers formed
the entire window display in a prominent London store when I visited there
only a few years ago. There is no over-production and there never has been.
Yet Rex. Tugwell, our "brain trust" leader, says new industry should not be
allowed to arise unless it has first been planned for and considered probably
desirable by the government. (See under Nat. Religion and Labor Found.)

In Russia, where Marxism rules, employees do not receive the full value



96 The Red Network



of their products in wages, according to the accepted Marxian theory of
value. Someone there, as everywhere, must take part of the sale price of
products and spend it to develop processes, build and maintain the factory
and tools, with which the product is made. The government is that someone in
Russia or under Socialism anywhere. Individual owners are the "someones"
under capitalism. Which is the more efficient? No capitalist can actually use
for himself a great amount of the world's goods. As the old British jingle
about being able to sleep in only one bed or wear one hat at a time goes:
"You can only wear one eye-glass in your eye,
Use one coffin when you die don't you know!"

The rest of a capitalist's profits are not hoarded in bags, but invested, and
that is spent, for further development of industry and further profits for
others as well as himself.

Many business men, now harassed by the evident animosity of socialistic
"New Dealers" toward private business for profit, warned to keep prices down,
wages up, hours of business long (for themselves), hours of employees short,
to compute sales taxes and to expect to lose their blue eagle if they err, would
gladly, but for the hope of future change, rid themselves of the worrisome bur-
den of running a profitless business for others, and become employees them-
selves. Many people who saved to buy investments for their own "old age
security," which are now almost worthless, wish they had squandered the
money instead. Even the movies portray all mortgage owners as villains.
Many of these villains are widows, orphans, and aged people dependent for
support on this income. Insurance policies depend largely upon mortgages.

Many Chicago home owners, straining to pay preposterous state, county,
sanitary district, and other taxes on their homes and furniture, would now
gladly change places with renters of furnished apartments and give up the
struggle of meeting taxes.

When it no longer "pays" to own property or run a business, it means
that capitalism or "private ownership" is being squeezed to death. Socialism
is killing it. Only when Socialism is throttling legitimate profits does the
big and little capitalist stop investing, that is, spending, and try to hide a
little of his fast disappearing money from the tax collector, but "New Dealers"
have devaluated even money now. The State seems about ready to gobble up
all private ownership rights.

In the face of all evidences of the success of capitalism and of the failures
of Socialism, one can but marvel at the ever gushing zeal of Socialist propa-
gandists. Their appeals to abolish the profit motive are as sweet as the rustle
of angels' wings. Who could remain unmoved by the following from "Toward
A New Economic Society" by Kirby Page and Sherwood Eddy? (p. 83):
"What can religion as the champion of personality do to give our economic
activities an ethical content and place them in their proper sphere? . . . The
profit motive must be supplanted by the motive of service or production for
use, which in turn means that ownership as soon as practicable, should rest
in the hands of the community. . . . The Columbia Conserve Company in
Indianapolis, owned and controlled by its employees, is a rare but enlightening
example of this form of organization." (Soulful, is it not?)

The Columbia Conserve Company, from a thousand pulpits, lecture plat-



Capitalism Hewer and "Ctriseler" 97

forms, and class rooms, has long been heralded as the most advanced form
of industrial democracy, an example to youth, a reproof to the American
business man. Yet, the socialist World Tomorrow (Dec. 21, 1933) itself
publishes this story of its debacle: About 15 years ago Mr. Wm. P. Hapgood
with the cooperation of his brothers, Norman and Hutchins, established a
canning factory with the avowed purpose of demonstrating the possibilities
of democracy in industry. A system was also devised whereby the ownership
of the company would pass by stages into the hands of the employees. About
a year ago, the quarrel between Mr. Hapgood and some of the ablest veteran
workers became so acute that in February, with the consent of all parties
concerned, Sherwood Eddy, Jerome Davis, Paul H. Douglas, and James Myers
(all radicals) were requested to serve as a committee for the purpose of inves-
tigating the whole situation. An agreement was reached which was to remain
in force until April, 1934. Nevertheless, within two months Mr. Hapgood
requested of the committee that the company be released from the agreement.
Opposition was offered to this by a group of employees, etc. (Wm. M. Leiser-
son, Roosevelt appointee as secy. Nat. Labor Bd., was chosen as arbitrator.)

To quote from the reply of this Committee of Four who charged breach
of faith and of contract: "During our own experience with the Columbia
Conserve Company during recent weeks, we have observed with deep regret
that Mr. Wm. P. Hapgood, although in his philosophy, democratic, seems to
have proved autocratic in dealing with the workers. ... It seemed to the
Committee that the leaders of those who dared openly to differ with the
management were forced out or impelled to resign until effective industrial
democracy had disappeared" (as in Russia).

The socialist World Tomorrow draws from this "disappointing outcome
of a notable experiment" the conclusion that "genuine democracy in industry
cannot be achieved by isolated efforts. . . . Nothing short of the socialization
of natural resources and basic industry will suffice. . . . Therefore it seems
to us that deeper wisdom has been displayed by Powers Hapgood who left
his father's plant to become a national organizer for the Socialist Party. The
collapse of the experiment in industrial democracy at the Columbia Conserve
Company is partly the result of the failure of the human spirit, but much
more it is the consequence of an inadequate social philosophy and an incorrect
social strategy."

Jail or the shot gun is the "correct social strategy" in the Soviet Socialist
paradise. These take the place of competition, under capitalism, in settling
wage and other controversies. Had the United States been completely social-
ized at the time this quarrel broke out, governmental forces would have been
used to "crack down" on these disgruntled workers.

Socialist appeals for complete Socialism, sharing, and abolition of the
"profit motive" would be so much more winning if Socialists first voluntarily
proved the success and practicability of their theories, instead of insisting
upon the necessity for brute force to achieve and hold Socialism in power.

One notes that even such a zealous "Christian" Socialist as Rev. E. F.
Tittle of Evanston, while denouncing Capitalism and social inequality be-
tween whites and negroes, yet continues to enjoy his capitalistic salary, home
and car, instead of sharing them with poor evicted negroes, and sends his own



98 The Red Network



daughter through Roycemore, the most exclusive private school on the North
Shore, although Evanston has good public schools.

Morris Hillquit, national executive of the Socialist Party for many years,
died recently, leaving a fortune of some $200,000, which according to his
Socialist principles, should be "redistributed." He should have shared it
long ago.

Bernard Shaw, one of the world's most outstanding propagandists for
Communism-Socialism, lives in England where he can enjoy the huge profits
from his writings and other capitalistic ventures. Portly Maxim Litvinoff,
who visited the United States while hunger was rampant in Russia, bore no
marks of suffering, nor, as the Chicago Tribune remarked at the time, was
there any direct evidence that he had been "especially fattened for the oc-
casion." He demonstrated the well-known fact that political commissars,
everywhere, eat, regardless of whether others starve or not. The cure for the
temptations inherent in politics which give rise to its widespread corruption,
is not more political offices, more temptation, more politicians, more political
power, more graft, more taxes in other words more Socialism but less, and
a return to the individualistic sense of responsibility, the private initiative
and capitalism which has actually hewn and chiseled American greatness out
of a primitive wilderness and given its people the highest standard of living
of any people in history.

The National Republic (Dec. 1933 issue) under the heading "The Failure
of Socialism" states:

"Persons socialistically inclined often point to the present world-wide
depression as 'a failure of the capitalist system,' that is, of the system of
private ownership of property and liberty and from this argue in favor of
fundamental changes in the economic order as a means of improving the lot
of the people.

"But the present world-wide breakdown could more properly be charged
to a collapse of the socialist system. Every important power in the western
world today, except the United States, is under either socialist parliamentary
control, or that dictatorship to which socialism leads as in Italy, Poland,
Germany and Russia.

"Beyond this effect of direct socialist control, the menace of political
ownership of property and destruction of individual liberty and enterprise,
and the meddling with the established monied systems, are the chief factors
in the slowing down of business enterprise. It is not to be expected that
productive enterprise will go ahead full steam when enemies of all private
enterprise are busily engaged in trying to tear up the tracks and burn the
bridges just ahead.

"In western Europe, under the threat of socialism and bolshevism, money
was withdrawn from productive enterprise in thousands of cases and went into
hiding. In this country political demagogues and doctrinaires who are at
heart socialists whatever their outward party profession, have been busily
engaged in threatening all business enterprise, and hampering and ham-
stringing it wherever possible. What they cannot immediately destroy by
socialist legislation, they try to tax and restrict and handicap to the point of
extinction. In this they are joined by those international adventurers of



Fascism 99



capitalism who seek by this method to kill off all independent enterprise in
the belief that they may gain profits not only through national but world-
wide mergers. . . .

"The failures of socialism in the Old World are resulting in dictatorships.
Socialism centralizes all power in the politicians. It hands over to them
complete control of the life, property and liberties of the people. Thus it builds
up a giant machine ready for the hand of dictators. Will we venture into
such chaos?"

FASCISM

Fascism, the bitterest enemy of Socialism-Communism, resembles Socialism
in the respect that it gives great power to the State and dictatorship over all
industry, employment, education, freedom of the press, etc. The points of
difference which make it violently hated by the Reds are: its opposition to
the "class struggle" and the subjugation of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Rather, it seeks a harmony between all classes and concedes
to industrialists, white collar, professional, as well as laboring workers, a place
in the social order as necessary parts, not "class enemies," of the whole, but
under State control. It defends some property rights and religion. It opposes
Marxist philosophy and the Communist and Socialist Marxian parties. Fas-
cism in Italy is not anti-Semitic. The problem of the large number of revo-
lutionary Russian Jews in Germany doubtless contributed toward making
Fascist Germany anti-Semitic.

Fascism arose in Italy and Germany as the result of the weakness of
Democracy in combatting the Marxian poison which had been allowed to
disintegrate the entire social fabric of these nations with agitations for strife
and disunity. It took over power at a time in both countries when the choice
lay between Fascist or Red dictatorship. It is the only enemy feared by the
Reds, because it is the only system which opposes militancy with militancy
and puts down one dictatorship by means of another.

The price of Democratic freedom is eternal vigilance. When a people are
too indifferent to the loss of their liberty, too blind to see that unchecked
Marxism will result in complete chaos, disunity and national helplessness, too
lazy to bother to protect their form of government, or to govern themselves,
then some form of dictatorship will arise to take over the task for them.

Unless large numbers of Americans shake off their present indifference to
fast disappearing liberty and to danger from within, and combat Socialism-
Communism vigorously, some form of Fascism will arise in America to do
battle with Socialism for the dictatorship over the indifferent. As the strength
of Socialism-Communism increases, the chance to preserve Democracy de-
creases, until eventually Fascism becomes the only alternative to Socialism-
Communism. It is late, but not too late to save American Democracy if
Americans will awaken now/ Where are America's leaders?



100



The Red Network



o




.$.

Q

U
N



1MI
ifh

H rt .-J3



'*$



| M^
IS*

^s|. s

C >
* u,

IP

gig?
*g~
121

w ?

CJ r!



3S
c fi.a

jrt

rt



w *-*

!r






s.e^
*11

5 2 ^



, M -



*l!i 5s

S B| I -a

wW |2 e ,

Ji^^ *#
S-E^ ^J S



-fa I

s^

I s

ill

2 9-



1



llll
i-g-i

n 5



60



a ffl



f- ; s" s

S3l

i/j tjl w> C

J c G

^^i-^

^^.s



- 8

_.<

r

1 ^ g |
w> w SS
S-g-

^41^

r SJ **-
^ .S - o



3
C "PJ



I

C









^c-
S.2.



2

M

C



11-af

I-i:






I



1*



= 1

!!

o "^

s S



J SI



vs



11

S 3

'5



PART II



ORGANIZATIONS, ETC.

Descriptive data concerning more than 460 Communist, Anarchist, Social-
ist, I. W. W., or Radical-Pacifist controlled or infiltrated organizations and
other agencies referred in the "Who's Who" (Part III) :

A Unity Publishing Co., of Lincoln Center,

also headed by Curtis Reese, publishes a
weekly magazine, of which the editor is
John Haynes Holmes, which has long had a
reputation for radicalism. The Lusk Re-
port in 1920 (p. 1129) said: "Such Uni-
tarian ministers as J. M. Evans and A. L.
Weatherly" (on Unity staff 1933) "can
abjure God without leaving their ministry.
John Haynes Holmes changed the name of
his so-called church from 'Church of the
Messiah' to 'Community Church' as an out-
ward mark of his change of heart from
Christianity to Communism. An insidious
anti-religious campaign is being carried on
by these men and their colleagues in such
reviews as 'The World Tomorrow* (New
York) and 'Unity' (Chicago)."

"A Song of Revolt," a poem by Com-
munist Robert Whitaker with his footnote
explaining "how I can accept the Com-
munist position with my opposition to
War," appears in Sept. 4, 1933, issue of
"Unity." To quote from page 12: "This
significant fast of Gandhi to me is second
in significance only to the crucifixion of
Christ" (Gandhi is a pet of the Reds).
Words of praise for Harry Ward's book on
Russia are written by J. B. Matthews;
another review says "Once again we are
favored with a book from the pen of that
fearless Methodist preacher, Ernest Fre-
mont Tittle" (see this "Who's Who"). The
"New Humanist" magazine featuring Harry
Elmer Barnes (vice pres. atheist Free-
thinkers Society) exchanges advertisements
with "Unity" and a cut-rate is offered for
subscriptions to both.

Sidney Strong, radical, father of Anna
Louise Strong (the Communist editor of
the Moscow Daily News in Moscow) and
of Tracy Strong (whose communistic ac-
tivities in the Y.M.CA. were widely com-
mented upon by the press), is one of the
board of directors of Unity. In his article
in the Sept. 18, 1933, issue he says: "More



ABRAHAM LINCOLN CENTER
"UNITY"

Anyone reading the bulletins posted in
the entrance hall of the six-story building
entirely occupied by Abraham Lincoln
Center (a social settlement) would believe
that he had entered a Communist insti-
tution. For example, in Sept. 1933, one
placard read: "Enroll Now! Chicago
Workers School, 2822 S. Michigan Av."
(Communist school of revolution) ; another
announced new issues of "New Masses"
(Communist magazine) and said "You can
get it from M. Topchevsky here at desk!"
(M. Topchevsky teaches art at the com-
munist Workers School) ; another headed
"John Reed Club" (Communist club at
1475 S. Michigan Av.) listed lectures to
be given there, among others "Eugene Bech-
told Sat., Sept. 23, at 8:30" (another
teacher at communist Workers School) ;
another notice addressed to "All Organiza-
tions Save Our Schools Committee," etc.,
signed by Sam Lessitz, secretary of the
communist National Student League, urged
all those interested to come to a meeting
to be held Sept. 22, 1933, at 3223 W.
Roosevelt Road, Room 302, for the pur-
pose of planning further agitations against
Chicago school economies and pointed out
that the National Student League "a non-
partisan organization" ( !) was already re-
sponsible for recent strikes in two schools.
Lincoln Center is the meeting place for
such Communist groups as the I.L.D.,
national convention of John Reed Clubs
1932, etc. Players from Lincoln Center
helped to form the communist Chicago
Workers Theatre (see) of which Curtis
Reese, head of Lincoln Center, is an official
sponsor. The communist Workers' Labora-
tory Theatre School (see) is conducted at
Lincoln Center for the purpose of training
actors for revolutionary plays.



101



102



The Red Network



than a year ago Litvinoff of the Soviet
Republic made proposals that involved a
drastic reduction of arms all around in
fact at one instance he proposed that steps
be taken towards total and general dis-
armament" (see "Pacifism"). "Unfortun-
ately his proposals were not heeded. . . .



Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 13 of 59)