Elizabeth Kirkpatrick Dilling.

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

. (page 9 of 59)
Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 9 of 59)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

to them with a kiss. So again today with the kiss of supposed friendship for
Christ the Judas "Christian" worker for atheist Socialism-Communism
betrays our Lord within His own sanctuary to the Socialists-Communists who
wait only for the power to destroy the Christian faith. It is as unsuitable
to yoke Christianity to Socialism as it is to yoke Christianity to atheism or
to yoke Christ's teaching pf the indissolubility of marriage and the family
unit to the Marxian teaching of "free love." The "class struggle" and "class
war" of Karl Marx have nothing in common with "Love your neighbor as
yourself" and frequent admonitions against coveting "anything that is his."
Karl Marx very correctly stated, in respect to the success" of his own teach-
ings, that the Christian "Religion is the opium of the people." It deadens
people to the call of the "Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth"
to follow the Marxian way of hate and lust and class war. Instead, the teach-
ing of the "Light of the World" offers them "The Way, the Truth and the
Life" everlasting. Christians should read the Parable of the Talents on the
unworthiness of doing nothing, and be sure that they are aligned on God's
side in this conflict to "fight the good fight" against satan's "whited sepul-
chres," the Red pacifists.


Anyone willing to peruse the dry documentary evidence by reading, for
example, the lists of Communist organizations and leaders named side by
side with "Peace" organizations and leaders, as cooperating and official sup-
porters of such Communist-organized and controlled affairs as the various
Congresses against War (World, U. S., Youth, Student), cannot doubt that
the Pacifist and Revolutionary movements are linked together by hoops
of steel.

One might wonder why revolutionaries support Pacifism. That they do
back Pacifism with good hard cash is shown by reading the Garland Fund
Reports. One sees, for example, that the Fund's directors: Communists
Wm. Z. Foster, Robt. W. Dunn, Scott Nearing, Eliz. Gurley Flynn, and
Benj. Gitlow (the first American Communist sentenced during the war),
and their close associates and fellow directors Socialist Norman Thomas,
Harry Ward, Roger Baldwin, etc., voted large sums of money in successive
years to Jane Addams' Women's International League for Peace and Free-
dom (see), which agitates against all R. O. T. C. and C. M. T. C. Camps,
all military training and armament for the United States but advocated
recognition of militaristic Russia and sweetly suggests abolition of property
rights (Communism).

One is surprised that a "peace" leader like Miss Addams could serve
with these same men for 10 years on the national committee of the American
Civil Liberties Union, 90% of whose efforts are in defense of Communist

66 The Red Network

revolutionaries, and not realize that their first plan is for bloody world
revolution and not "peace." One may choose to believe either that Miss
Addams was too dull to comprehend this, or that she believed a Communist
revolution would aid peace eventually, or draw one's own personal conclusions.

These same Garland Fund Communists and their associates voted "To a
group of students at Northwestern University and Garrett Biblical Institute,
Evanston, 111. April, 1924 for anti-militarist movement, $497.41," record-
ing in the same official report sums given: to the Anarchist school at Stelton,
N. J.; to the Communist press; to the American Civil Liberties Union for
its Communist defense activities; to the communist Labor Defense Council
to aid their own director Wm. Z. Foster and his fellow Communists arrested
at Bridgman, Mich.; etc.

In the 1925-28 Report, we see they voted: to the "Optional Military
Drill League, Columbus, Ohio for one half expense of campaign against
compulsory military training, $250"; to the "Wyoming State Conference
Methodist Church, Laramie, Wyo. for publication of literature against com-
pulsory military training, $300"; and to the "Committee on Militarism in
Education, New York City (1) For preparation and distribution of pam-
phlet on 'Military Training in Schools and Colleges in the U. S.' $5,400 (2)
Toward general budget, $5,000," and later another $2,000; at the same time
voting to the Young Communist League at Superior, Wis., $2,000; another
$2,400 to Jane Addams' W. I. L. P. F. and $6,122.10 to the communist
Workers School of New York City, which trains leaders for violent Communist
revolution on the United States. Are these gifts for contradictory purposes?

Pacifists frequently refer to Soviet Russia's disarmament proposal as a
proof of its peaceful intentions. Maxim Litvinov, as Soviet "Peace Envoy,"
proposed to the League of Nations, in 1928, that all nations, including Russia,
immediately and completely disarm. This Maxim Litvinov, who is Meyer
Genoch Moisevitch Wallach (also alias Finklestein, Graf, Maximo vitch,
Buchmann, Harrison), "In 1908 was arrested in Paris in connection with
the robbery of 250,000 rubles of Government money in Tiflis. ... He
was deported from France." The bomb thrown by Stalin in this robbery
killed or injured fifty people. Litvinov's secretary Fineberg "saw to the dis-
tribution of his propaganda leaflets and articles. At the Leeds Conference,
2 June, 1917 (to hail the Russian Revolution to organize British Democracy
to follow Russia, and establish Soviets to replace our Government), Litvinov
was represented by Fineberg" (London Patriot, July 20, 1933). Litvinov was
barred from England for his seditious activities ; admitted back under Ramsay
MacDonald's Red Socialist government. Interception of Litvinov's mes-
sages from Moscow caused the raid on Arcos, Ltd., and the severing of diplo-
matic relations between England and Russia (resumed again under Ramsay

Lord Cushendum, aware of the persistent and flagrant violation of Rus-
sia's Trade Agreement to cease revolutionary propaganda in England ques-
tioned Litvinov before the League of Nations, asking him whether his "peace"
proposal of disarmament would include the cessation of Soviet government
fomentation of civil war in all countries. To this Litvinov replied (N. Y.
Herald Tribune, Mar. 23, 1928): "It had never occurred to us and we had
no grounds for believing that the League intended to include under the ques-

II. Pacifism and Its Red Aids 67

tions of disarmament and security the prevention of civil war and the class
struggle. I may say without the slightest hesitation that the Soviet govern-
ment would never have agreed to participate with the British or any other
government here represented in working out questions regarding the class
war or the struggle against revolution. It would be naive to expect such work
from a government which owes its existence to one of the greatest revolutions
in history."

The communist Daily Worker, in a thesis entitled "The Struggle Against
Imperialist War and the Task of the Communists" (Jan. 3, 1929), empha-
sized the point that this Soviet disarmament proposal was in harmony with,
not opposed to, the world revolutionary movement, saying: The aim of the
Soviet proposal is not to spread pacifist illusions, but to destroy them, not
to support capitalism by ignoring or toning down its shady sides but to
propagate the fundamental Marxian postulate that disarmament and the
abolition of war are possible only with the fall of capitalism. The difference
between the methods of combating pacifism employed by the proletariat in
the Soviet Union and those adopted by the working class in capitalist coun-
tries does not mean there is a contradiction between the two; nor does it
follow that Communists in capitalist countries must not make use of the
Soviet Government's declaration on disarmament in carrying on agitation
among the masses. On the contrary the disarmament policy of the Soviet
Government must be utilized for purpose of agitation much more energetically
and to a wider extent than has been done hitherto ... as a means ( 1 ) For
recruiting sympathizers for the Soviet Union the champion of peace and
socialism ; ( 2 ) For utilizing the results of the Soviet disarmament policy and
its exposure of the imperialists in the effort to eradicate all pacifist illusions
and to carry on propaganda among the masses in support of the only way
toward disarmament and abolition of war, viz., arming of the proletariat,
overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing the proletarian dictatorship."
(Emphasis supplied.)

Under the title "What Is True Is True," Izvestia (official Soviet govt.
organ), Mar. 1, 1928, quoted the accusation " 'As for Russia, in reality it
is striving to destroy civilization in all countries of the world and at the same
time proposes disarmament' From a speech by John Hicks," presenting
below it a poem of reply by Damian Byedny, which, freely translated, was
as follows:

"What is true is true

We admit without hypocrisy

We carry on, and we will carry on agitation,

And we will prevail rest assured!

In having all the world bury 'civilization'

Which is conceiving wars!

I do not envy, Mister, your situation,

You have come to a fateful syllogism,

Communism leads to disarmament

Disarmament to Communism."

When military training was added to the program of the Young Com-
munist League the communist Daily Worker, (Aug. 6, 1928) explained:

68 The Red Network

"Our Leninist position on militarism and war is very clear and certain. We
are NOT against war and against militarism as such. We are against
IMPERIALIST war; we are against BOURGEOIS militarism (i. e. the
militarization of the proletarian and farmer youth to fight in the interests
of the bourgeoisie). But we are in favor of REVOLUTIONARY wars (wars
of oppressed colonial peoples against the imperialist powers, civil wars of
proletarian revolution) ; we are in favor of the military training of the pro-
letarian youth to learn to use arms in the interests of their class and against
the bourgeoisie. 'An oppressed class that does not strive to learn to use
arms . . . deserves to remain in slavery.' (Lenin.) We are therefore opposed
to pacifism (which opposes, as a matter of principle All war and All military
training) .... Our main task of course is to prevent the young workers who
are being militarized from becoming traitors to their class; it consists in
winning them for the proletarian class struggle and getting them to use their
training for the benefit of the workers and not against their own class . . . and
this attitude is in no contradiction to on the contrary it clearly falls in
with our bitter and most determined struggle against new imperialist wars
and bourgeois militarism. . . . We realize very well that under present con-
ditions and for the next period of time, the chief way for us to obtain military
instruction is in the military organizations of the bourgeoisie (regular forces,
National Guard, military schools, R. O. T. C., C. M. T. C., etc.) ; of course,
as Comrade Gorki points out (Jugend Internationale, May, 1928) the send-
ing of our comrades into these bourgeois military institutions 'implies no
rejection whatever of the attempt to set up a class organization of the pro-
letariat to provide military training for young workers.' "

The communist Daily Worker editorial of Sept. 30, 1933 was addressed
to the Communist-called U. S. Congress Against War, then in session in
N. Y. City, Earl Browder, nat. sec. of the Communist Party, and Henri Bar-
busse, French Communist who came to America especially for this Congress,
being the headlined speakers to share the platform (according to Daily
Worker, Sept. 28, 1933) with Mrs. Annie Gray, speaking as director of the
Women's Peace Society, Emil Rieve, A. J. Muste, Devere Allen of the World
Tomorrow (War Resisters' organ}, and others; five delegates had been
elected from the Pa. Branch of Jane Addams' W. I. L. P. F. to attend. (Sept.
29, 1933 Daily Worker.)

This editorial said: "The Communist Party urges upon the Congress a
real united front on the basis of a fighting program against war a revo-
lutionary working class program. . . . Serious systematic work must be under-
taken in every factory, on every dock, on every ship, arousing these workers
against war, exposing every detail of the war preparations for them, setting
up Anti-war committees, hampering and working to prevent the manufacture
and shipment of war material and munitions. . . . Phrase mongering, empty
peace talk this is not the road. Mass action behind a revolutionary pro-
gram is the road the congress should follow, starting now against the N. R. A.
All the honest elements, all persons and organizations ready to fight can unite
behind such a program."

"The A. B. C. of Communism" (by N. Bukarin and E. Preobrazhensky,
English translation by Eden and Adar Paul, issued by Communist Party of

Socialist Party (and the New Deal) 69

Great Britian) is a standard Communist text book used everywhere in Party
schools. It states on p. 83: "The proletariat is fighting solely on behalf of
the new social order. Whatever helps the struggle is good; whatever hinders,
is bad." . . . "We must promote disintegration in an army which is ranged
against the workers and is at the orders of the bourgeoisie, even though the
latter consists of our fellow countrymen. Failing this the revolution will
succumb ... a revolutionist who destroys the State apparatus of the bourge-
oisie may consider that he is doing excellent service." On p. 129: "To think
that the revolution can take place without civil war is equivalent to thinking
there can be a 'peaceful' revolution."

The formation of Soviet nuclei throughout our armed forces is covered
under "Soviet Organization in the U. S."

The seditious pronouncements of the Socialist Party and the jailing of
numerous Party leaders during the war, the attempts of the Socialist Inde-
pendent Labour Party of England (see "English Red's") to cause revolution,
and present Socialist Party activities, are covered more fully under the title
"Socialist Party (and the New Deal)."


Because the Socialist Party generally favors the taking over of the gov-
ernment first by legislative means, relying on a throat-cutting revolution
principally as a finishing touch when it becomes necessary, it is called
"yellow" by the Communist Party and "practical" by its followers. Chame-
leon-like, the Socialist agitator colors himself to fit the group he is addressing,
appearing asr a delicate-pink, "Christian" social reformer in Churches, and
as a throat-cutting capitalist-hating revolutionary and a genuine Marxian
atheist in militant labor circles. Since 1912 the Socialist Party has achieved
practically its entire 1912 platform, passing hundreds of socialistic laws and
"stealing" regular party elections by electing Socialists as regular party
candidates, until now in 1933 the entire Socialist Party rejoices at the social-
istic New Deal and radical "Roosevelt Appointees" (see).

Under the heading "Longuet Urges All Socialists to Support N. R. A.,"
the Chicago Daily News, Sept. 15, 1933 reported: "Jean Longuet, French
Socialist leader and grandson of the founder of socialism, Karl Marx, declares
today in the French socialist organ Populaire that socialists everywhere
should approve President Roosevelt's program because it is rapidly trade-
unionizing the United States." Without more extensive unionization than
America has ever had the Reds believe a general strike would be unsuccessful.
Communists, anarchists and I. W. W.'s have always advocated the general
strike as the prelude to revolution. Most revolutions are preceded by the
general strike. The English general strike, altho planned to result in Red
revolution, failed. The Daily News, Sept. 21, 1933 quotes Clarence Senior
just home from the Second Internationale conference in Paris as saying: "For
the first time in its history the Socialist and Labor internationale indorsed
the general strike as a means of thwarting an outbreak of war." (Or turn-
ing war into revolution.)

Norman Thomas writing in the socialist New Leader, Aug. 19, 1933 issue,

70 The Red Network

says: "The Roosevelt program has achieved certain things . . . these things do
not constitute Socialism but State capitalism, although a kind of State
capitalism unquestionably influenced by Socialist influence and agitation. . . .
The great hope of the New Deal is that it may make it a little easier ... to
advance toward a truly Socialist society." Says the Socialist "World Tomor-
row" (Aug. 31, 1933 issue): "When the aims of the Ickes-Perkins-Richberg
forces at the Capital are compared to those of the previous Administration,
the change is indeed breath-taking. Most of the pet nostrums progressives
have advocated throughout the last two decades are now being tried on a
huge* scale at Washington. To consider the formation of a new party at such
a time, a party that seeks to fit in between Rooseveltian liberalism and that
of the Socialist Party of America seems to us the sheer madness. . . . Whatever
the weaknesses of the Socialist Party in the past or in the present, it has
been making gigantic strides in the right direction."

Upton Sinclair, active in both Socialist and Communist organizations,
the press reports, is to run for governor on the 1934 Democratic ticket in
California. Socialist La Guardia was elected as the "fusion" candidate for
Mayor of N. Y.

The Socialist and Communist Parties fight like brothers. Just as the
Communist Party fights Socialist leadership everywhere, but at the same
time cooperates with and works for the same ends as Socialists, so the Com-
munist Party is now bitterly fighting the socialistic New Deal, in which it
considers Socialists are sitting too prettily, and is insisting that the "revo-
lutionary way out of the crisis" is the only way. Each Party accuses the
other of disrupting the Socialist-Communist movement.

Norman Thomas is one of the "militant" members of the National
Executive Committee (N. E. C.) of the Socialist Party who voted in 1933
for an immediate "united front" with the Communist Party, according to
the May, 1933 issue of "The Communist" (p. 428), which states that of the
N. E. C. members Norman Thomas, Albert Sprague Coolidge, Powers Hap-
good, Darlington Hoopes, and Leo M. Krzycki voted for immediate formal
cooperation with the Communist Party, while Morris Hillquit, James D.
Graham, Daniel W. Hoan, Jasper McLevy, John L. Packard and Lilith M.
Wilson, the "old guard," voted to wait for action by the two Internationals.
The vote evidently went by a very close margin, 6 to 5, against immediate
formal cooperation. So, April 17, 1933, Clarence Senior, exec. sec. of the
Socialist Party, sent the following reply to the Communist Party which was
printed in "The Communist" (same issue) : " 'The national executive com-
mittee has voted to comply with the request of the Labor and Socialist
International not to enter into united front negotiations with national sections
of the Communist International until the L. S. I. and the Comintern have
reached an agreement for an international united front.' (quoted in full
C. A. H.)" (Clarence A. Hathaway.)

The Socialist Party's New Leader, Apr. 8, 1933, stated: "In answer to
a request by a committee of the Communist Party for a so-called 'united
front' against fascism, the Conference stated that it lacked authority from
any of its national and international parent bodies to unite with a party which,
while making gestures in the direction of a united front, has since its incep-

Socialist Party (and the New Deal) 71

tion followed a policy of disuniting and disrupting the laboring elements of
the world. As soon as the Communist Party 'discontinues its policy of
destruction of our united strength, a united front will be possible not only
against fascism but against all the forces of capitalism which are grinding
down the strength of labor.' "

"But Norman Thomas puts the case for the 'militants' most clearly,"
says "The Communist" (May 1933), and reprints Thomas' letter, which was
sent out by the Socialist Party N. E. C., in which Thomas says (the voting
was by mail) : "I am voting Yes on Comrade Krzycki's motion for the ap-
pointment of a sub-committee to discuss with the sub-committee of the Com-
munist Party the question of united front. I cannot too strongly urge the
adoption of this proposal. I have recently been traveling rather extensively
in New England and elsewhere and know that in our own Party and outside
of it we shall suffer very considerable harm if we can be made to appear to
be blocking any kind of united front action. Frankly, I am skeptical whether
the Communists will undertake united action on honorable terms. But for
the sake of our own members, especially our younger people, it must be made
obvious that it is they who sabotage the united front, not we who disdain-
fully reject it," etc. "The Communist" adds that the united front proposal
"requires more than here and there a joint meeting or now and then a joint
conference." Socialists and Communists have had these all along.

Though jealous of each other, Socialists and Communists since their
division in 1919 have worked together, intermingled, and quarreled like a
family. When they split in 1919, Morris Hillquit, the "conservative" N. E. C.
member, always a Socialist Party executive, said (New York Call, Sept. 22,
1919, also Lusk Report): "Our newly baptised 'Communists' have not
ceased to be Socialists even though in a moment of destructive enthusiasm
they have chosen to discard the name which stands for so much in the his-
tory of the modern world . . . they have not deserted to the enemy. The bulk
of the following is still good Socialist material and when the hour of the real
Socialist fight strikes in this country we may find them again in our ranks."

In a letter appearing in the New York Call, May 21, 1919 (also Lusk
Report, pp. 524-30), headed the "Socialist Task and Outlook," Hillquit
referred to the Socialist-Communist impending split and said: "Let them
separate honestly, freely and without rancor. Let each side organize and
work its own way, and make such contribution to the Socialist movement in
America as it can. Better a hundred times to have two numerically small
Socialist organizations, each homogeneous and harmonious within itself, than
to have one big party torn by dissensions and squabbles, an impotent colossus
on feet of clay. The time for action is near. Clear the decks."

When five Socialist members of the N. Y. State Legislature were expelled
on the ground that the Socialist Party was not an American political party
but a revolutionary organization, the 1920 Socialist Party national convention
issued a report which "modified the relations with the Third Internationale
of Moscow so as to permit association with that institution while giving to
the Socialist Party in America the opportunity to carry out its campaign in
this country by parliamentary methods" (Lusk Report p. 1780).

Benj. Glassberg, a leading socialist Rand School instructor, in a letter

72 The Red Network

published in the N. Y. Call, July 26, 1920, commented on this Socialist Party
report and "modification'' saying in part: "It has 'Albany' written all over
it. It was framed, ostensibly, to meet the objections which were raised by
Sweet against the Socialist Party so that the next delegation of Assemblymen
will not be unseated. It is intended to paint the Socialist Party as a nice,
respectable, goody-goody affair, rather than a revolutionary organization
whose one aim is to overthrow a dying social order and replace it with a
Cooperative Commonwealth."

Morris Hillquit, speaking as a Socialist Party leader Sept. 25, 1920 (Lusk
Report p. 1789), said of this supposed "change": "We have never at any
time changed our creed. Never certainly to make ourselves acceptable to
any capitalist crowd. ... As international Socialists we are revolutionary, and
let it be clearly understood that we are out to overthrow the entire capitalist

Eugene V. Debs, while in prison for seditious activities, was nominated
as the Socialist Party candidate for President of the U. S. A. The Socialist
Party bulletin for June 1, 1920 contained the official report of Debs' speech
of acceptance upon notification of his nomination in which he said: "Before
serving time here, I made a series of addresses, supporting the Russian Revo-
lution which I consider the greatest single achievement in all history. I still
am a Bolshevik. I am fighting for the same thing here that they are fighting

Online LibraryElizabeth Kirkpatrick DillingThe red network; a who's who and handbook of radicalism for patriots → online text (page 9 of 59)