Undetermined Month

"Should the American Workers Form a Political Party of their Own? A Debate. Morris Hillquit (National Chairman, Socialist Party) -- Yes. Matthew Woll (Vice President, American Federation of Labor) - No. [1932] Nearly a decade after the Labor Party question first burned hot for the Socialist Party of America, its position had changed little -- it was in favor of establishing a constituent organization akin to the British Labour Party. Nor had the opposition of organized labor moved -- it remained, by and large, opposed to the establishment of a Third Party, instead continuing to tout the tactic of selective support of "Friends of Labor" within the two major parties. This 1932 debate between Socialist Party National Chairman Morris Hillquit and AFL Vice President Matthew Woll details the thinking behind each of these positions. In the course of his remarks Hillquit assigns blame for the failure of the Third Party movement in 1924 to the desire of Robert LaFollette to run alone, resulting in the "doom of the movement." The AFL is upbraided by Hillquit for its "late and...luke warm" support of the LaFollette candidacy, which is said to have killed any chance for the LaFollette campaign to lay "the foundation of a great and powerful labor party in America." Full text of a pamphlet published in 1932 by the Rand School of Social Science.
(Proposed Draft) Program: Fighting Methods and Organization Forms of the Unemployed Councils: A Manual for Hunger Fighters. [1932]   Full text of an ultra-rare mimeographed pamphlet by the National Committee of the Unemployed Councils of the USA, not listed in WorldCat. The document details the program and structure of the Unemployed Councils, a mass organization launched and controlled by the Communist Party USA. The Unemployed Councils were not to be a dues based membership organization, but rather were to be open to all workers accepting the group's program, without regard to race, gender, political affiliation, or employment status. No mention is made of organization on the basis of language groups. Funds were to come from the sale of "Registered Supporter" cards, costing 5 cents for 3 months, plus voluntary weekly or monthly donations receipted with "Fighting Fund Stamps." Social events, picnics, lectures, and other occasional fundraisers were to help supplant this income stream. The primary unit of the organization was to be the "Unemployed Committee" consisting of 3 to 15 members, generally elected on the basis of geography rather than shop or industry. These Unemployed Committees in turn elected from 1 to 3 of their members to delegated bodies called Unemployed Councils. These Unemployed Councils in turn were to elect representatives to a City Council in metropolitan areas with a sufficient number of these groups. Committees and Councils were instructed to form 8 member "Self Defense Groups" which would "operate in an organized manner to defend headquarters, meetings, demonstrations, and delegations against violent attacks by hoodlums and police." The radical "immediate demands" of the committees seems to have been generated on the initiative of their local membership; the delegated councils seem to have had more centralized direction, "[guiding] the movement in line with the general program and aims."


APRIL 1932
"The Socialist Party and the Militant Program," by James Oneal [April 9, 1932]  After nearly two years of agitation at local and state meetings of the Socialist Party of New York a younger generation of Socialist Party activists emerged as a formal faction in the spring of 1932, issuing their program as a short pamphlet. This is an initial response to that document by New Leader editor and top leader of the Old Guard Jim Oneal. Always the ideological pugilist, Oneal immediately attacks the Militants as an eclectic group of new party members, "neither Left, nor Right, nor Center." These are united by a desire to refuse compromise under any circumstances, in Oneal's telling, as well as to suppress all critical debate about the nature of the Soviet Union. Oneal quotes Lenin and Engels in making his case against what he perceives to be an inconsistent band of neophytes. He cites his own intellectual path from utopian colonizer to impossibilist to party regular as evidence that years of study and experience are necessary before Socialist intellectual development is complete.



MAY 1932


"That 'Reactionary' International," by Morris Hillquit [May 7, 1932]  The letter to the editor of The New Leader by Morris Hillquit hints at the personal and generational components of the factional battle between young insurgent "Militants" and the veteran "Old Guard" of the Socialist Party of America. Hillquit takes umbrage at the claims of Boston Militant Alfred Baker Lewis that every weakness and compromise of foreign socialist parties found ready apologists in America, "headed intellectually" by Morris Hillquit. Making use of his mastery of understatement and irony, Hillquit explains the American Socialist delegation's decision to support a less than fully satisfactory disarmament resolution jointly adopted by the Labor and Socialist International and the International Federation of Trade Unions. Hillquit reveals not only that he was the author an American position statement that Baker had accused him of ignoring, but an extensive excerpt of the 1931 LSI Congress stenogram is reproduced in which Hillquit explicitly specified the American delegation's dissatisfaction with the final resolution's timidity. Baker's histrionics are demolished, but the intellectual tension between the two emerging factions is readily apparent.


"'Left' Proposals at the Socialist Party Convention," by Jack Stachel [May 11, 1932]  Commentary on the forthcoming 1932 convention of the rival Socialist Party of America by CPUSA regular Jack Stachel. Stachel notes the decisive victory of the SP center-right at the group's previous 1928 national convention, at which "Hillquit, Lee, Thomas & Co. decided that the class struggle had become out of style side by side of the chicken pot and the two auto garage." By early 1929 the SPA "openly gave up Marx, whom they had vulgarized and betrayed for years, and adopted Hooverism and Fordism," Stachel asserts. The coming of economic crisis had discredited the theories of prosperity and social peace of the SP Regulars, Stachel intimates, giving life to a new left wing presence in the party, the so-called "Militants." Stachel dismisses this new tendency as "ministers and intellectuals, middle class elements that in 1928 and 1929 led in the praise of organized capitalism and 'class peace.'" Stachel depicts the program of the Miitants as a transparent attempt to undercut the revolutionary program of the Communists, an "attitude to the class struggle that unmasks the Socialists as the agents of the bosses in the ranks of the working class."


"The Finnish Socialists in America," by W.N. Reivo. [May 1932] Report of the Secretary of the Finnish Federation of the Socialist Party to the 17th National Convention of the organization, held in Milwaukee in May 1932. Reivo states in no uncertain terms that "the future of the Socialist Party in America is in the native born stock. They days of the language federations are in the past." Reivo notes that the children of Finnish immigrant socialist parents tend to join the English-language branches in their communities rather than the Finnish-language branches. This is not necessarily a bad thing, Reivo believes, as "perhaps it would be a mistake if the youth joined us directly and stood aloof of the body of the Socialist Party just as the older element does now." Nevertheless, the reputation of the Finnish Federation was greater than at any time since the 1920 split of the organization and the growth of the SP was edifying -- even if very few disgruntled ex-Communists were making the trek back to their former organization.
"Why I Left the Communist Party," by J.T. Murphy [May 20, 1932]  The acrimonious departure of top level leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain J.T. Murphy in 1932 was the source of much commentary and speculation. Here Murphy outlines the story of the break from his own perspective -- relating to criticism of an April 1932 lead article in the theoretical journal The Communist Review in which Murphy emphasized a demand for the granting of large scale trade credits to Soviet Russia. Murphy's phrasing was deemed an unauthorized theoretical innovation, which spurred an exchange of hostile letters and an attack on Murphy in the party's London-based newspaper, the Daily Worker. Murphy bridled to the hostility, characterizing his opponents' charges as "slanderous and violent attacks, full of lying imputations and distortions of my views and motives," which indicated "the triumph of hysteria in the Communist Party leadership." Disgusted by the rote repetition of the CPGB Buro's criticism of Murphy and unwilling to modify his views, Murphy stepped aside, declaring here "I refuse to be coerced into the acceptance of views I do not agree with."
"Keynote Speech to the 1932 Socialist Party Convention," by Morris Hillquit [May 21, 1932]  Socialist Party National Chairman Morris Hillquit lights up a room full of delegates and guests in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with this keynote address to the assembly. President Hoover is derided as "ludicrously incompetent" to deal with the economic meltdown, with his platitudes and financial stunt targeted to the financial community rather than suffering unemployed workers. The alternative of Franklin Roosevelt is seen as bringing to the table only a small injection of "innocuous liberalism." In reality, Hillquit declares, "we are witnessing today is nothing less than the complete bankruptcy of capitalism," with both the old parties having proved themselves unequal to the magnitude of the catastrophe. Hillquit calls for an end to high tariffs and the cancellation of uncollectable war debts as small steps towards "a radically remodeled, new, sane and equitable social order."


"Hillquit Again National Chairman: Dramatic Session Ends in His Re-election," by James Oneal [event of May 23, 1932]  One perplexing aspect of the eventful 1932 Socialist Party convention was the pitting of the staid Mayor of Wisconsin, Dan Hoan, against New York party icon Morris Hillquit as the candidate of the New York-based Militant faction's insurgency. This article by staunch Hillquit supporter Jim Oneal provides some illumination: the two candidates had personal friends in both camps, Oneal indicates, with the race for the figurehead National Chairman position largely symbolic of the programmatic division within party ranks. Hoan, seemingly a half-hearted supporter of the effort to unseat Hillquit, did not even take the rostrum during the convention debate. Hillquit seems to intimate a deeper division that personal vendetta, however, calling his Militant-and-Milwaukee opponents an "unholy alliance working against why I and my friends stand for." For his party, Hillquit declared himself a Marxist and an international socialist, mocking one supporter of Hoan as an unsophisticated neophyte.


"The Socialist Party Convention Day-by Day," by Edward Levinson [events of May 21-24, 1932]  Detailed first-hand journalistic account of the 1932 National Convention of the Socialist Party of America, held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Although this convention marked the first national appearance of the so-called Militant faction, the gathering seems to have been a lively but ultimately amicable affair, marked by the reelection of Morris Hillquit as National Chairman in a contest against the combined forces of the young Militants and the Milwaukee party organization. A hotly debated resolution of the Soviet Union supported by the Militants narrowly passed, as did a resolution calling for the end of liquor prohibition. Norman Thomas was nominated for President and James Maurer for Vice-President amidst convention delegate tomfoolery for a national radio audience. Includes extracts of speeches by Louis Waldman, Morris Hillquit, and Norman Thomas, as well as a complete listing of the new 11 member NEC and the 5 elected alternates.
"Socialist Party Convention: Opportunism and Petty Bourgeois Reform Mark Outstanding Traits of Convention and Standard-Bearers," by “J.W.” [events of May 21-24, 1932]   Brief account of the sometimes stormy 1932 National Convention of the Socialist Party of America, held in Milwaukee, by a member of the Proletarian Party of America who was in attendance as an observer. The Proletarian Party activist notes ironically the way that Morris Hillquit's keynote speech against the timidity, superficiality, and phrasemongering of the liberals was at least as applicable to the Socialist Party itself. The organization's attempt to offer official support for the "Soviet experiment" while at the same time condemning the effects of the dictatorship of the proletariat is loudly criticized, with the dictatorship of the proletariat lauded as "the one thing that makes success possible." The "healthy sign" of emergence of a left wing labor movement within the SPA is noted, although "even this militant section" is said to have "a long way to travel before it will become Marxian in its understanding and revolutionary enough in its political activity to constitute any real danger to the petty bourgeois makeup of the Socialist Party." The SPA is characterized as a reform party during a phase of capitalist development in which reforms are no longer possible, critically and seemingly insurmountably hampered by its petty bourgeois social composition.



  SEPTEMBER 1932
"Correspondence between William L. Patterson, Communist  Candidate for Mayor of New York City and Morris Hillquit, Socialist Candidate for Mayor of New York City,  Late Sept. 1932."  This article from the Socialist weekly The New Leader reproduces a vituperative letter from Communist candidate for Mayor of New York William Patterson demanding a debate of Socialist candidate Morris Hillquit and Hillquit's reply. Citing a 60% unemployment rate in Harlem, Patterson accuses Hillquit and the Socialists of offering noting to "ameliorate the suffering of Negro or white workers." He accuses Hillquit of living an opulent lifestyle which separates him from the sufferings of the working class in the depression. Patterson posits Hillquit's failure to protest a passage from The New Leader published two years previously as evidence the Hillquit stands "openly on the side of those who support Jim-crowism, lynch-terror, brutal exploitation, and oppression of the Negro people." In reply Hillquit accuses Patterson of taking the perspective not of Socialism or Communism but rather that of crude nationalism, noting that the Socialist program treats workers of all ethnicities as a class and offers one relief program for all. Hillquit denies the assertion that he lives a posh lifestyle and subtly accuses Patterson of either incompetence or dishonesty by garbling the passage from The New Leader. Hillquit uses understatement to mock Patterson's nasty attack upon himself and the Socialist Party in declining to debate: "From the mild tone of your observations I infer that you are a novice in the Communist movement and have not yet fully mastered the picturesque vocabulary of Communist invective."


 
OCTOBER 1932

"Letter from Tom Mooney in San Quentin Prison to Joseph Stalin in Moscow, Oct. 17, 1932." This letter was promoted on the cover of the November 1932 issue of Labor Defender, the official organ of the CP's legal defense organization, International Labor Defense. While the greetings to Stalin on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia are largely pro forma, the document is interesting both as a snapshot of Mooney's personal politics ("All Hail to the Russian Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I'm for it hook, line and sinker, without equivocation or reservation.") as well as to the way that a Cult of Personality was beginning to emerge among the Communist faithful even at this early date (the person of Stalin beginning to be regarded as a human embodiment of the Russia revolution). Mooney expresses his belief that had it not been for the demonstration on his behalf of Petrograd workers on April 25, 1917, he would have been executed.


"Eugene V. Debs is Dead But His Spirit Still Lives," by James Oneal [Oct. 22, 1932]  With the 6th Anniversary of the death of Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs nearing, Old Guard leader James Oneal takes to the pages of The New Leader to assign political meaning to the icon. Oneal indicates that Debs had disdain for those espousing the half-measure of "progressivism." Instead Debs is depicted as a Marxist whose chief value was as an agitator who "inspired millions of workers with confidence in themselves as a class." Oneal also depicts Debs not only as a spokesman for revolutionary socialist but also a committed believer in political action, citing his 1912 alignment with the center-right coalition against William D. Haywood and the anti-political syndicalist left wing which had emerged in the party. Oneal calls for renewed commitment to the working class orientation of Debs -- a veiled critic of the emerging intellectual-oriented "progressive" faction in the Socialist party, exemplified by Norman Thomas and Harry Laidler.

 






The URL of this page is: http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/year1927downloads.html