vital documents in pamphlet form, namely, 'The Manifesto Communist
International,' issued 1919 by the Soviets of Russia at Moscow to
the toiling masses of the world. This is undoubtedly the greatest
declaration ever issued from any working class tribunal since the
Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels ... the second is 'The
Constitution World's First Socialist Republic....
[Signed] "Edwin Firth,
"Literature Dept."
But Hillquit, the great "expert on Socialism," missed reading this
"vital" manifesto all the summer of 1919, when the Socialist papers were
full of it; and yet, by some wild chance, himself composed a close echo
of it!
The cowardly "Reds," as we have seen, want a violent revolution and
constantly preach it to the discontented as boldly and openly as they
dare. But they want America's workingmen to take all the risk and do all
the work, and they go on with their frantic agitation in the hope that
American labor will some day organize a great "general strike" and try
to turn it into a revolution to overthrow the United States Government.
Naturally, therefore, the Socialists get excited whenever any great
labor strike is on, and they stand as tempters whispering the word
"revolution" into the ears of the strikers. Sometimes they get their
suggestion that the strike be turned into a revolution before the
strikers' minds by a hypocritical pretense that they are afraid that
what they so much long for is likely to happen. Debs, the Socialist
Party's presidential standard-bearer, is a past master in this art of
suggestion through a pretense of feeling concern, and during the steel
strike of 1919 he even tried to "start something" of this kind from
behind the bars of his jail. Thus in the form of an interview, sent as
a "special to the 'New York Times,'" which published it September 24,
1919, he got off the following hypocritically inflammatory comment on
the steel strike from his place in the Atlanta Federal Prison:
"'I fear that much violence will result from the strike. Then we
have the potentiality of other unions to consider, for many of
them, including the miners, who have a crisis coming within a short
time themselves, as well as the railroad men of the country, who
have already made demands--these workers and others may be drawn
into the great steel struggle before it is over, and while I do not
believe that a prearranged general strike will be called, yet I
fear the results of great excitement over possible killings like
those we read about in the papers of today, and it is possible that
in the heat of passion men may lay down their work and be swept
into a revolution with cyclonic fury.
"'Anything is possible as an outcome of the present situation,'
continued the prisoner, 'and should a general strike or revolution
occur it would be the outcome of too great pressure being brought
to bear upon the men who, in a state of unrest and industrial
uncertainty, have reached a highly inflammable condition that might
burst out spontaneously.'"
"Honest" Bill Haywood, one of the foremost Socialists of the time,
admitted as far back as the early part of 1912, in a speech at Cooper
Union, New York City, that the Socialists were conspirators against the
United States Government.
The Socialist Party of America, ever since its birth, has been reviling
and attacking the Government of the United States with a view to
overthrowing and destroying it. Is it possible that such an organization
is not engaged in a conspiracy against our country?
The American Socialists have been thoroughly unpatriotic. "To hell with
the American flag!" "Down with the Stars and Stripes!" "I would spit
upon your flag!" These are a few of their expressions of contempt. The
United States uniform and the soldiers alike are scorned and ridiculed.
The article in "The Call," "Rows and Rows and Rows of 'em march," which
has been quoted in a previous chapter, shows the reader the real spirit
and intention of Debs' gang, who have been so zealous in stirring up
strikes with a view to the final ruin of our present form of government.
Debs, four times the standard-bearer of the Socialists in presidential
campaigns, has revealed himself, as we have shown, in such utterances as
these:
"As a revolutionist, I have no respect for capitalist property
laws, nor the least scruple about violating them.... I am law
abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."
"Let the sturdy toilers of the Pacific Coast raise the Red standard
of revolt."
"All hail to the revolution."
"I enter the prison doors a flaming revolutionist, my head erect,
my spirit untamed, and my soul unconquered."
"In Russia and Germany our valiant comrades are leading the
proletarian revolution.... They are setting the heroic example for
world-wide emulation. Let us, like them, scorn and repudiate the
cowardly compromisers within our ranks, challenge and defy the
robber-class power, and fight it out on that line to victory or
death."
This favorite leader of the radicals of America was convicted by jury of
violation of the Espionage Law on September 12, 1918, and two days later
sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The case was appealed
on the ground that the Espionage Act was an unconstitutional abridgment
of the right of free speech. The decision of the United States Supreme
Court was handed down on March 10, 1919. In the words of a Socialist
work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 102, "The Court
held that the law was not contrary to the Constitution and affirmed the
sentence imposed upon Debs by the lower court. The decision was
unanimous that the nature and intended effect of his speech was to
obstruct recruiting and enlistment in the army."
Yet this same Year Book, in its account of "The Emergency Convention of
the Socialist Party" at Chicago in August-September, 1919, says, page
409: "The Convention went on record offering the presidential nomination
of the party to Eugene V. Debs, the nomination to be ratified at the
1920 Convention."
On March 5, 1920, at Albany, in the final argument for the five
suspended Socialist Assemblymen, according to the "New York Times" of
March 6, 1920, Seymour Stedman said of Debs: "He represents in a sense
the Socialist movement. Perhaps he represents it more completely than
any other man in this country."
In order that the reader may understand the extreme way in which
lawbreakers like Debs and Victor L. Berger were justified by those
defending the five suspended Socialists at Albany, we give an extract
from the testimony of Morris Hillquit on February 19, 1920, as reported
in the "New York Times" of the next day:
"The testimony leading up to Mr. Hillquit's admissions was given
after Martin Conboy of counsel for the Judiciary Committee had read
into the record a speech and a signed article by Victor L. Berger.
In the speech, delivered at the Socialist National Convention in
1908, Mr. Berger said:
"'I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when
it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there.'
"In the signed article which appeared in a Socialist newspaper
published in Milwaukee the following year, he wrote:
"'Socialists and workingmen should ... have rifles and the
necessary rounds of ammunition ... and be prepared to back up their
ballots with their bullets.'"
In reply, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920,
putting his own far-fetched construction on Victor L. Berger's words,
Morris Hillquit himself advanced the doctrine of "a little shooting" in
the following statement:
"'History ... has shown that when the privileged minority is about
to lose its privileges ... it tries to destroy reform or lawful
revolutionary movements by force, ... and in a case of this kind it
may come to shooting.
"'It is not at all impossible that, even in this country, when the
majority of the people will be ready to introduce substantial
reform and take away the privileges of the profiteering class by
constitutional, legal methods, these self-same profiteering
interests will take offense and try to play some trick upon the
people, and in that case it is possible--as a matter of prophecy,
not as a matter of program, so far as we are concerned--that the
people of this country will be compelled to supplement their
political action by a little shooting.'"
Testifying the same day, Hillquit endorsed Debs as follows, according to
the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920:
"When asked if Debs is a candidate of the Socialist Party for
President, Mr. Hillquit replied:
"'If any voice or influence of mine could accomplish anything, he
certainly will be nominated at the next convention.'
"'The Supreme Court has passed upon the conviction of Debs and
affirmed it,' said ex-Judge Sutherland, of counsel.
'Notwithstanding this judgment, you still declare that Mr. Debs
represents and personifies the attitude of the Socialist Party on
the subject of loyalty to the United States Government?'
"'I do not say that he represents the attitude of the Socialist
Party. I think I said that he represents the highest and noblest
sentiments of United States citizenship and American loyalty....
Debs was convicted only for saying things, not for doing things. I
do not for a moment doubt he said the things he is charged with
having said.' ...
"'Do you uphold and approve of, as a leader of the Socialist Party,
the words that Mr. Debs pronounced, and for which he was
convicted?'
"'I haven't got his complete speech before me. I do not want to
commit the Party in this general way to every statement. I will
say, as a whole, I read his speech at the time and my impression
was that it was a perfectly innocent, honest expression of
opposition to war for very good and patriotic motives.' ...
"'Have you any respect at all for the decision of the tribunal to
the contrary?'
"'I have respect to this effect: that I know that it is final and
binding and in practice will go. I do not have respect in the sense
of believing that it is just, impartial, and well-reasoned out.'
...
"'Mr. Hillquit, do you wish to be understood as saying that you
approve of the words spoken by Mr. Debs for which he was
convicted?'
"'Are you trying to get me a little conviction, also, Judge?' asked
the witness.
"'I am not in a position to indorse every word and every phrase
because I have not the speech before me,' he continued. 'As a rule,
I fully indorsed his statements on the subject of the war,
expressed, I suppose, in that speech and in other speeches.... I
share with all my comrades the greatest respect for Debs, and
cannot think any compliment too high for him.'
"'And you think it was that largeness of view, do you, that led Mr.
Debs to say the things which brought him into conflict with the law
of the United States?'
"'Absolutely, just in the same way as it once happened to one Jesus
of Nazareth.'"
"'And you say that notwithstanding the highest judicial authority
known under the Constitution has declared him guilty of doing
that, and in contempt of that authority, notwithstanding that
authority, you say that he is the man that should be placed in the
President's chair by the votes of the Socialist Party?'
"'I do.'
"'If Mr. Debs were elected in 1920, how would you proceed to
inaugurate[12] him, as he is serving a twenty-year sentence?' asked
Assemblyman Jenks.
"'The chances are that prior to the time he would be called upon to
occupy the chair the powers that be would sober up enough to know
that the present conviction is an improper and inhuman act and
liberate him.'"
On several occasions at the trial, in spite of Hillquit's studied effort
to cast an air of innocency over his party, menacing words escaped from
this crafty leader. He could not restrain them even at the end, on March
3, 1920, when summing up the case for the Socialist defendants at
Albany, according to the following account in the "Sun and New York
Herald" of March 4, 1920:
"Justifying the general strike as an emergency weapon, Mr. Hillquit
made this startling statement interpreted in some quarters as an
open threat:
"'The workers of this country have the right "to call a general
strike" and it is well that they should at least hold it in
abeyance as a possible instrument in some cases, in very
exceptional emergencies. I will say that the general strike has
been used abroad for the purpose of enforcing political action.'
"'A labor party is being formed,' Mr. Hillquit said, 'in some parts
of the country. Suppose it should elect representatives to the
Legislature and a capitalist in that Legislature should get up and
say "I don't approve of your programme; get out of my Legislature."
"'I say this would be eminently a case where the workers would be
justified in declaring a general strike until such time as their
constitutional rights are actually accorded to them.'"
To this "veiled threat" Martin Conboy, counsel for the Judiciary
Committee, replied the next day in summing up for the prosecution. We
quote his words from the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 5, 1920:
"'Under the veil of a simile a threat was employed that if you
gentlemen concluded that these five Socialist Assemblymen should
not sit in this chamber as members of this Assembly a general
strike might be called. In the whole history devoted to the
development of this idea there has been no more frank exposition of
the doctrine than that. It is proof, sufficient and satisfactory to
the point of a demonstration of the charge that has been made in
this case.
"'The threat carries itself further. You must not only admit them,
but you must take their legislative programme and exact it into
law; otherwise the general strike will again be employed.
"'No opportunity is lost by the leaders of the Socialist Party to
impress upon the rank and file that it is impossible to achieve
ultimate triumph by political action. For this reason the American
Federation of Labor is subjected to continuous attacks and
misrepresentation. For this reason Debs, originally an ardent trade
unionist, abandoned and repudiated his former associates after
joining the Socialist Party.'"
The hypocritical defense made by the Socialists at Albany, through which
the unchanged character of the unrepentant plotters has constantly
revealed itself, should put us on our guard. Brought into the light by
wholesale arrests and deportations, all branches of radicalism, in this
country and at Moscow, have adopted new tactics of deception. They
profess peace and a return to peaceful methods, claim the liberties
which belong only to the law-abiding, and hide behind the sympathies of
those who are easily taken in. Yet they justify all their misdeeds, and
withdraw none of their evil principles, but rather reaffirm them, with
subtlety. What does this mean? It means that the old conspirators, whose
overt acts have lately crowded our law-courts, hope to fool the American
people into letting them continue their propaganda unto lawlessness
under a thin mask of conformity to the very laws they seek to destroy.
Although the "Red" conspiracy, as a result of government prosecution,
has taken on disguises and gone under ground, it is not, thus, less
virulent and dangerous, but more so. Evidence of deceit appeared in the
"One Big Union Monthly" for February, 1920, to which lack of space
prevents more than a mere allusion. That issue contained articles
showing even the I. W. W. preparing an alibi and a disguise. They argued
that their organization was not "illegal," and that its famous Preamble
meant "evolution" and not "revolution." Another article urged the I. W.
W. to give up its name and amalgamate with other industrial unions in a
new organization to be known as The One Big Union.
Still more significant, the same magazine for February, 1920, published
a new incitement to revolution by Leon Trotzky, together with a "Call
for Proletarian International" signed by "The Bureau of the Central
All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions" and an "Appeal of the Russian
Industrial Unions to the Workers of the Allied Countries" signed by "The
Bureau of the All-Russian Council of Industrial Union." The "call"
reads:
"The Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions invites all
economic organizations based on the real and revolutionary class
struggle for the liberation of labor through the proletarian
dictatorship to solidify anew their ranks against the international
league of brigands, to break with the international of
conciliators, and to proceed in unison with the Central All-Russian
Council of Industrial Unions toward the organization of a truly
international conference of all Socialistic labor unions and
veritable revolutionary workers' syndicates.
"We beg all economic labor organizations that accept the program of
the revolutionary class struggle to respond to our call and enter
in a direct touch with us."
The accompanying I. W. W. comment was, "We are sure that our
organization will be there." Thus, if it be under ground, the mole still
works. Moscow still inflames, unifies and directs the great
world-conspiracy against the "Entente Powers" and all the nations that
have been looking toward peace. The "Appeal," accompanying the "call,"
says in part:
"Can it be true, that you, the workers of England, France, Italy
and the United States, will much longer support your governments
and permit your blood to quench the spreading conflagration of the
social revolution? Can it be that the international bandits of the
League of Nations and the thrice-branded Versailles shall be
allowed unhampered to weave their nets for the strangling of the
world proletarian revolution?...
"Down with the bandits of imperialism!
"Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!
"Long live the International Soviet Republic!"
Near the end of his article Trotzky says, according to "The One Big
Union Monthly," for February, 1920, page 21, "By thrusting the
bourgeoisie away from the helm of state, by taking power into its own
hands, the working class is preparing for the creation of Federation of
Soviet Republics of Europe and the whole world.... War was and will
remain a form of armed exploitation or armed struggle against
exploitation."
An editorial note on the same page, immediately below the article of
Trotzky, says: "The above article and the APPEAL OF THE RUSSIAN
INDUSTRIAL UNIONS TO THE WORKERS OF THE ALLIED COUNTRIES are taken from
documents on Russia of the working class, written by members of the
Soviet Government.... These materials were sent to Fellow Worker Wm. D.
Haywood by Comrade Leon Trotzky, the valiant Commissary for War of the
victorious Workers' Commonwealth. We are happy to announce that the I.
W. W. will be the first to publish these latest documents on peasant and
industrial life in Bolshevikland."
Did Martens and Hillquit advise Lenine and Trotzky to disguise their
American propaganda by using the Industrial Unions of Russia as their
cat's-paw? We ask this because Hillquit has long been "Councillor" in
America to the Russian Soviet Republic,[L] while the above method of
inflaming American labor unions has been the secret method of the
Socialist Party's Rand School of Science for some years--since 1916, at
least. These are facts established by documents obtained in the summer
of 1919 by raids of the Rand School, put in evidence before the New York
State Legislative Committee, Senator Clayton R. Lusk, Chairman, and
referred to in the July 30, 1919, issue of "The National Civic
Federation Review," from which we quote the following:
"One David P. Berenberg is director of the correspondence
department of the Rand School. From the letter-files seized there,
evidence was produced showing the kind of propaganda conducted
through Berenberg's department. In a carbon copy of a letter to
Harry L. Perkins, of San Diego, Cal., dated June 7, 1916, the
statement was made:
"'When we read of 'preparedness' that is in full force in the camps
of the capitalists, we realize that unless we organize and fit
ourselves to resist, and to take over the government, we will one
day find ourselves where our French and German brothers are today,
dead or maimed in the fray.'
"'In other words,' commented Chairman Lusk, 'for over two years
this Rand School has been advocating armed preparedness to take
over the government.'
"A letter--obviously after a form letter sent to correspondents
generally--dated October 3, 1916, addressed to M. E. Rabb, Xenia,
Ohio, offered as evidence, contained the following:
"'What are you doing when the State robs you and your union and so
makes you helpless to strike? There is only one thing to do: take
over the State.
"'Are the members of your local prepared to take over and conduct
wisely and well the affairs of your town and county? Are you
prepared to meet the militia when the powers of the State and
courts are against you? Are you arming yourself with the knowledge
of the foundations of our society so that when these crises come to
you, you will have an organization strong enough to have foreseen
and forestalled them? Are you training your members in scientific
Socialism?'
"This same adroitly phrased incitement was found in other
correspondence."
This pest-house of treason and lawlessness, the Rand School, Hillquit's
pet university of Socialism, ought to be dug up by the roots. And what
shall we say of such evidence? Why should the Socialist Party of America
hesitate to affiliate with the Third (Moscow) International and approve
its "programs and methods" when Hillquit's illegitimate offspring, the
Rand School, was teaching such "methods" a year before the Bolsheviki
seized Petrograd and the dictatorship? Is Hillquit Lenine's pupil or
Lenine's teacher? Is Hillquit, backer of the Rand School propaganda, the
same gentle Morris Hillquit who as an "expert on Socialism" testified
before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on February 17, 1920:
"The word 'revolution' does not have for us the romantic
significance of barricade fights or other acts of violence that it
has for most of our newspaper writers and school boys." ("Sun and
New York Herald," February 18, 1920.)
Can this be the same Hillquit who earlier in the trial broke out in the
angry threat: "What we say to you, gentlemen: the contemplated act of
this Assembly, if consummated, _will ... loosen the violent
revolution_." ("New York Evening Sun," January 21, 1920.) Did he allude
to some pink tea party?
And perhaps the "school boys" Hillquit referred to are those by his pet
institution poisoned and turned into degenerates in the bud of manhood,
like poor Oscar Edelman, whose valedictory speech on graduating from a
course in the Rand School of Social Science ran thus:
"For us as students, Socialists and Labor Unionists, our work is
laid out. We must help educate the workers of America so that their
slogan, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' be replaced by
the revolutionary slogan, 'abolition of the wage system.' ... In
the great world-struggle which is taking place today, we must take
active part.... The ideals which today inspire Debs and Lenine are
the ideals which inspire us." (Lusk Committee evidence, quoted from
"The National Civic Federation Review," July 30, 1919.)
But of all the sublime performances of Hillquit, that which lays the
brightest crown on his veracity was the answer he gave at Albany on
February 17, 1920, to the long hypothetical question concerning the
attitude of the Socialists should their friends of the Third
International, the Bolsheviki, invade the United States.
At this question the redoubtable Mr. Hillquit, according to the "New
York Times" of February 18, 1920, "settled back in his chair and smiled"
and said: "I should say that the Socialists of the United States would
have no hesitancy whatsoever in joining forces with the rest of their
countrymen to repel the Bolsheviki who would try to invade our country
_and force a form of government upon our people which our people were
not ready for and did not desire_." (Italics mine.)
Had Hillquit stopped where the italics began he would have stretched our
credulity to the utmost. But if "our people" meant to him American
Socialists, we readily believe that invading Bolsheviki, coming to wrest
the American dictatorship from our native talent, would find themselves
and their undesirable "form of government" pitched into the sea by
Hillquit and his crowd. Majority Socialist against Spartacide and
Bolshevik against Menshivik--we have seen how one Socialist group repels
the "form of government" forced by another.
When we think of the heroic exploits of Hillquit in repelling foreign
invaders from America about 1917-18, can we not imagine him hurling one
of his deadly manifestoes at his Bolsheviki friends? No doubt when
Comrade Martens, the vanguard of the invading Bolsheviki, stormed
Hillquit's castle on Riverside Drive with a fee and a commission as
"Councillor," the outraged patriot crashed a receipt in full against the
invader's outstretched paw.
As we think of Hillquit's love for peaceful "political action"--on the
witness stand--those words from his foundling, the "New York Call" of
May 1, 1919, return to our minds:
"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future,
has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered
millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It
has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the
masses and the shining example of the martyrs: its spread is
irrepressible....
"The war of the nations has been followed by the war of the
classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and
demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the
great cities for life or death."
Mr. William English Walling, in an article published in the "New York
Times," January 20, 1920, asks a pertinent question about the
revolutionary activities of the American Socialist Party:
"The 'American Socialist Party,' finds itself compelled, precisely
like Lenine, to pretend to be a peace-loving organization, loyally
accepting constitutional democracy and opposed to violence. Are we
to take it at its own word? Is it possible that a few pious phrases
offered on occasion can deceive the American people as to the
nature of a propaganda organization that is shouting from the
housetops in every corner of the country and every day of the year?
"The only imaginable reason why the public has paid any attention
is that there are two or three organizations more wholly given over
to violence, whereas the Socialist organization gives a share of
its attention to party politics. It was said until recently, 'Oh,
the anarchists are for violence, but the Socialists are for law and
order.' Last August it was found that a large part of the
Socialists were for immediate revolution. Then it was said that the
Communists are revolutionary, but the Socialists are for law and
order. The reasoning was that if the Left Wing was for immediate
revolution, then the Right Wing must be for law and order!"
Mr. Walling expresses an expert opinion, having been a prominent member
of Hillquit's party until this organization, at St. Louis in 1917,
began the openly lawless course which led to the conviction of a large
number of its leaders under the Espionage Law. Moreover, since January,
1920, when Mr. Walling recorded the above opinion, evidence has come to
light which shows he was exactly right in saying that the American
Socialist Party acted "precisely like Lenine" in pretending "to be a
peace-loving organization" because it found "itself compelled" to do so.
The tactics of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff, the Bolshevist
"triumvirate" of Russia, and of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens and Morris
Hillquit in America, are so similar that the evidence brought by Lincoln
Eyre out of Russia perfectly interprets the "weasel words" of Martens
and Hillquit on the witness stand at Washington and Albany,
respectively. Hillquit, the connecting link, according to his testimony
at Albany, February 19, 1920, was born at Riga, Russia; came to America
a boy, like so many Russian immigrants; attended New York's public
schools; and under the protection of the Stars and Stripes, which he
would drag down, has made himself so emphatically one of the
"capitalists," whom he hates, that he resides on New York's famous
"Riverside Drive," and was able to testify with a smirk, "I flatter
myself that I am not a failure." (See printed "Testimony" of the trial
of the five Assemblymen for the details.)
A moral failure, without extenuation, most Americans will regard Morris
Hillquit. For out of thirty-five years, spent by him on our hospitable
shores in getting rich under the protection of our Government,
institutions and people, he has used at least twenty in trying to
destroy the benefactor that nursed him. See the "New York Evening
Telegram" of February 17, 1920, as follows: "Mr. Hillquit was called to
the stand as the first witness for the five Assemblymen. He gave his
residence as No. 214 Riverside Drive, New York City. Mr. Hillquit said
he had lived in this country thirty-five years, and had been a Socialist
since the party was organized, in 1900."
This is the man who in 1917 and 1918 backed his organization, so far as
he dared, to cripple the people of the United States while they were
engaged in a desperate war; and who since has been Lenine's brain in
America in trying to set fire to the house of government in which the
American people live. Notice his intelligence in the hypocritical
Bolshevist refinement of separating the Moscow Soviet Government from
the Moscow International, so that one of these may offer our people
peace while the other continues to plot our destruction. This
distinction was made, with its significance concealed, in Hillquit's
testimony at Albany on February 18, 1920, which the Albany
"Knickerbocker Press" of the next day, February 19, thus summarized:
"Mr. Hillquit testified at length concerning Soviet Russia.... Mr.
Hillquit also testified that there were differences between Soviet
Government, Bolshevists and the Moscow International. _The latter_,
he said, _did not represent Soviet Russia_, and the Bolshevists, he
said, were merely a national party of Russia." (Italics mine.)
In a cabled account of an interview with Zinovieff, sent by Lincoln Eyre
from Russia to the "World," headed, "Riga (by courier via Berlin), Feb.
24," and printed in the "New York World" of February 26, 1920, we have a
flood of light showing that the central plot of the Socialist
international conspiracy hinges precisely on the distinction which
Hillquit had made at Albany a few days before, namely, that the Moscow
International does "not represent Soviet Russia." Through the courtesy
of the "New York World" we quote from its issue of February 26, 1920,
the essential parts of Eyre's statement as follows:
"Bolshevik propaganda abroad, though still as active and insidious
as it has ever been has undergone a radical change of late. That
conclusion was arrived at by a close study of the subject, which I
pursued in Moscow and Petrograd, reinforced by an interview with C.
S. Zinovieff, ruler of the latter city, also President of the
Executive Committee of the Third Internationale and firebrand of
the revolution.
"The Russian Communist Party, which is the Bolsheviki's official
political title, no longer exports agitators chosen from among
members to kindle the flames of revolt in foreign lands. They are
too wise for that antiquated process nowadays. What they do in
these scientific times is to import from the country of his birth
the crudely fashioned product of his own domestic Bolshevism,
subject him to certain finishing processes (including perhaps a
gold lining) and ship him back home again complete in every detail,
smooth running and highly inflammable. That is one of the reasons
why the Soviet Government is prepared to promise and to keep its
promise to refrain from sending forth agents charged with spreading
the gospel of capitalistic annihilation....
"Another reason for the Soviet's willingness to quit propagandizing
abroad is that it has already turned over to the Third
Internationale all business of that kind.... Now, the Third
Internationale has no official connection with the Soviet
Government. It is supposed to be a separate institution. Yet all
its leaders hold office under the Soviets and its funds, which are
considerable, must be derived from Soviet sources. Nevertheless it
is technically, indeed legally, non-governmental, wherefore the
Moscow Cabinet is justified in pledging itself to leave propaganda
to 'friendly' foreign states alone.
"The moving spirit of the Third Internationale is Zinovieff, who,
with Lenine and Trotzky, forms the triumvirate on which Bolshevism
today rests, although he is by no means as big a man as the other
two. Zinovieff is not a member of the Council of Peoples'
Commissaries (the Cabinet), but merely of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, from which the former body derives its powers,
and which itself is subordinate to the supreme executive
legislative judicial organ, the All-Russian Convention of Soviets.
Thus, while the role allotted to him on the administrative stage is
really as prominent as that of any of his fellows, short of Lenine
and Trotzky, Zinovieff can legitimately claim to be without voice
in the actual administration of the Soviet Republic....
"The first point that Zinovieff made clear to me in our talk was
that the Third Internationale is not comparable to the League of
Nations.... The Overlord of Petrograd affirmed, ... 'The Third
Internationale ... is a purely political group. It is a
confederation of the world's Communists, an international coalition
of the Communist Parties already existing in their respective
countries.... The Third Internationale is a going concern, with
some 8,000,000 members.' ...
"'But,' I asked, 'how is your aim of a European world republic of
Soviets to be realized unless there is some international
governmental machine?'
"'There will be some such machine,' Zinovieff replied, 'but
probably it will take the form of a new organization along Soviet
lines. In my view, the revolution will follow the same general
channels it has taken in Russia, with alterations of detail, of
course. Should France overthrow capitalism, for instance, she will
at first establish Sovietism, and subsequently combine with us. To
foresee the mechanical angles of such combination, however, is too
early.'
"'And your propaganda programme,' I ventured, 'is as strong and
far-reaching as ever?'
"The prompt reply was: 'The Third Internationale is primarily an
instrument of revolution. It reunites at Moscow the intelligence
and energy of all the Communist groups the world over. Delegates
from the various national organizations come to us and give and
take knowledge about the cause and return to their respective home
countries refreshed and invigorated. This work will be continued,
no matter what happens, legally or illegally. The Soviet Government
may pledge itself to refrain from propaganda abroad, but the Third
Internationale--never!'"
Let us ponder this description of the Third International by its manager
and greatest living expert: its scope, a confederation of the world's
Communists, a coalition of the Communist parties of all countries; its
size, 8,000,000 members, perhaps greatly exaggerated; its nature, "an
instrument of revolution;" and its determination, to carry on
propaganda, for the violent seizure of every land by a dictatorship, "no
matter what happens, legally or illegally." Let us reflect that it is
with this Third International, and not the Russian Soviet Government,
that Hillquit's Party in America is affiliated, according to the
testimony of the Socialists themselves at Albany. Finally, with these
facts for a plummet, let us try to find the bottom of Hillquit's
hypocrisy in pretending at Albany that he and his disciples do not
believe in "revolution" but only in "evolution."
Before passing from Lincoln Eyre's testimony, we further quote from his
cable in the "World" of February 26, 1920, what we may call his
description of "the Third International at work," as follows:
"Zinovieff ... is that combination of idealistic Hotspur and
practical executive which is characteristic of many Bolshevist
leaders. Despite his long years in exile with Lenine, to whose
Doctor Johnson he played Boswell ably and loyally, this
shock-haired enthusiastic young Jew--he is to-day scarcely
forty--was able to run Petrograd.... Petrograd is still underfed,
underheated, dirty and desolate, but it continues to live.... For
this Zinovieff, as all-mighty controller of the city's destinies,
... deserves credit....
"Besides having a hand in everything that concerns local
administration, and most things which have to do with national
government, he personally edits and writes many pages of the Third
Internationale's organ, 'The Internationale Communist,' a monthly
magazine of some 250 pages printed simultaneously in Russian,
English, French and German. Moreover, he passes upon all important
printed matter emanating from the Internationale's press. Every
foreign Communist coming to Moscow or Petrograd sees Zinovieff and
gets pointers from him how to propagate Bolshevism.
"In the seven weeks I spent in Moscow, three delegates arrived from
the United States and literally scores from Germany, Hungary,
Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy,
China, Japan, Corea, India, Afghanistan and Asia Minor countries.
The only important states from which few Communistic envoys come
are Britain and France. Practically all these missionaries are
obliged to travel illegally, that is, with false passports or
without any. They slip across the fighting fronts that encircle the
Soviet Republic in astonishing ways, risking death and all forms of
hardship to reach Moscow. The one-time seat of Moscow's Emperors
has become to Communists the world over what Mecca is to the
Mohammedan pilgrims.
"A youthful emissary of the I. W. W. said to me: 'We come here to
drink of the fountain of revolutionary youth.' I asked him what he
thought would happen when Russia's frontiers were opened. 'We shall
come as we come now, but in greater numbers and with greater ease,'
he replied.
"'But won't the Third Internationale send its Russian agitators
abroad then, thus making it unnecessary for you to come here?'
'What for?' he retorted. 'There is no use sending Russians to talk
to American workmen. Americans will close their ears to a foreigner
where they will open them wide to one of their own countrymen. The
Third Internationale is a realistic organization. It has learned
long ago that racial and national prejudices, however misguided
they may be, are deep seated and cannot be overcome in a day. It
aims to get results, and so it lets Americans talk to Americans.'
...
"The Bolsheviki are as eager to precipitate a world revolution as
ever. But at the moment they are even more eager to establish
relations with the markets of the world, so that Russia may be
saved from economic catastrophe.... The Kremlin realizes full well
that it cannot hope to spread Bolshevism by means of its own
people. And with the Third Internationale headed by Zinovieff,
operating in close contact with the National Communist groups, it
knows it does not have to."
Thus the overtures of peace and promises of good behavior made by the
Russian Soviet Government to the other Powers are pure humbug; and
equally false are the professions of peace in America which Hillquit's
branch of the Third International has made to lull the fears of the
American people. To get the full force of this parallelism we have only
to place the law-breaking Socialist Party of America since 1917 in juxta
position with the hypocritical Socialist professions and principles
brought out in 1920 during the trial of the Assemblymen at Albany.
As the long record of jury convictions of officials and members of the
Socialist Party of America is the real foundation of the case against
the five New York Assemblymen, exposing the character of the
organization they serve, we quote for the reader's information a press
summary of the facts, submitted by a citizens' "Committee on Publicity,"
March 2, 1920, "for the approval of the People of the State of New
York." According to the Albany "Knickerbocker[13] Press" of March 3,
1920, this Committee's statement, after referring to "the procedure of
the New York Assembly in January, 1920," in "temporarily suspending the
five Socialist Assemblymen while instituting a judicial inquiry into
their qualifications to serve as law-makers," continues as follows:
"We believe the Assembly was misjudged in the minds of many who
reasoned: 'Socialists elected to previous Assemblies were seated
without objection, why then suspend the five Socialist Assemblymen
this year and investigate them?'
"We offer what we believe to be a complete answer to the question.
We believe the Assembly had a compelling warrant for its procedure
in serious facts and charges not known to previous Legislatures.
These include:
"First--Court records showing that most of the principal leaders of
the Socialist 'Party' were convicted lawbreakers.
"Second--the revelations of the Lusk Committee.
"Under the first head may be mentioned the conviction and
twenty-year sentence, on January 8, 1919, of Victor L. Berger,
National Executive Committeeman of the so-called Socialist Party;
the conviction of Eugene V. Debs, four times Presidential candidate
of the party, whose ten-year sentence was affirmed by the United
States Supreme Court March 10, 1919; and other convictions in 1919,
including, Adolph Germer, National Executive Secretary; J. Louis
Engdahl, editor of the Socialist Party's official publications;
Irwin St. John Tucker, head of its literature department, and
William F. Kruse, Secretary of the Young People's Socialist
organization. In addition, twenty of the Socialist Party's lesser
leaders and scores of its rank and file had been convicted of
disloyal acts and utterances, while nineteen of the chief Socialist
organs had their second-class mail privileges canceled for
disloyalty.
"Under the second head may be mentioned the fact that the
investigations of the Lusk Committee showed that the Socialist
incitement to lawlessness prevalent throughout the country was
largely due to the propaganda of the Rand School of Socialism, a
New York Corporation of which two of the Socialist Assemblymen were
members. Furthermore, the American Socialist Society, the
corporation that owns and conducts the Rand School, had been
convicted under the Espionage Act before the United States District
Court and heavily fined by Judge Julius M. Mayer.
"These were some of the facts and charges which were matters of
public record and public knowledge when the Assembly of 1920
convened. We submit, therefore, that if the Assembly had not taken
action as it did, it would have been derelict in its duty.
"We therefore recommend:
"1. That all loyal organizations pass, publish and file with this
Committee resolutions in acknowledgment of the service rendered by
the New York Assembly and in encouragement of similar action by the
Legislatures of other states.
"2. That individuals affirm this judgment in suitable ways, and
particularly by letters to the press in their localities.
"3. That all loyal individuals and organizations co-operate to give
the whole American people the exact facts concerning the conspiracy
of radicals against our Government and institutions.
"To this end we propose to continue the work of education by
permanent organization under the name of 'Publicity Committee
Against Socialism.'"[M]
The above list of Socialist convictions for lawbreaking will be found
completely confirmed, on Socialist authority, in Trachtenberg's Labor
Year Book, 1919-1920, pages 92-103.
Was this record questioned by the Socialist defense at Albany? In no
wise; it could not be. Was the record faced, the guilt of the
lawbreakers confessed, and their transgressions deplored as acts of
disloyalty which the Socialist Party now condemns and repudiates? Not at
all. These acts were freshly confirmed, and taken anew upon the
Socialist Party, by brazen justification of them at Albany and
condemnation of the laws, juries and courts of the American people.
We have seen how Hillquit on the witness stand justified the disloyal
and violently revolutionary utterances of two of the chief offenders,
Debs and Victor L. Berger, identifying himself with their sentiments and
proclaiming Debs as the highest type of American citizen, the man most
fit for President of the United States. We have also seen that the whole
Socialist Party was in 1919 committed to the nomination of Debs as its
Presidential candidate in 1920; while it is a well known fact that when
Congress excluded Victor L. Berger from that body because of his
conviction as a lawbreaker, the lawless Socialist Party at once
re-elected him to show its contempt for law and order under our
institutions.
The testimony piled up by the prosecution at Albany showed that, instead
of judging the wholesale lawbreaking by its leaders and members in 1917
and 1918, the Socialist Party had in 1919 and 1920 involved itself in a
still deeper guilt, adding treason to disloyalty by affiliating itself
with the open enemies of our Government in Russia and other foreign
lands. Was this denied by the Socialist defense at Albany? No, the fact
of affiliation with the Third (Moscow) Internationale was admitted,
reducing the defense to the false principle that the five Socialist
Assemblymen should not be excluded on account of their signed pledge of
obedience to a lawless organization, no matter how lawless it might be.
Thus in summing up for the defense, on March 3, 1920, Morris Hillquit,
according to the "New York Times" of March 4, 1920, made the following
excellent summary of the evidence against his party:
"First--That the Socialist Party is a revolutionary organization.
"Second--That it seeks to attain its ends by means of violence.
"Third--That it does not sincerely believe in political action, and
that its politics is only a blind or camouflage.
"Fourth--That it is unpatriotic and disloyal.
"Fifth--That it is unduly controlled--or that it unduly controls
public officials elected on its ticket.
"Sixth--That it owes allegiance to a foreign power known as the
Internationale.
"Seventh--That it approves of the Soviet Government of Russia, and
seeks to introduce a similar regime in the United States; and,
finally,
"Eighth--That the Assemblymen personally opposed prosecution of the
war and gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
"'All of these charges,' Mr. Hillquit said, 'are distinctly charges
against the Socialist Party as such. In other words, it is the
Socialist Party of the United States that is on trial before you.'
...
"'I think, perhaps, the most telling point is the charge that the
Socialist Party is unpatriotic and disloyal--at least it has been
emphasized more than any other,' said the lawyer. 'We opposed the
war.... If similar conditions again arise I am sure we will take
the same position.'"
Similarly, Seymour Stedman, summing up for the Socialists on March 5,
1920, not being able to deny the many convictions of leaders and members
of the Socialist Party under the Espionage Law, openly attacked the law
itself, according to the following account in the "New York Evening Sun"
of March 5, 1920:
"Albany, March 5.--A bitter attack on the Espionage Act was made by
Seymour Stedman in his final summing up for the five suspended
Socialists before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly today.
"'Because of that act, you don't know the truth about this war; you
cannot know the truth about this war until the Espionage Act is
dead,' he asserted....
"Mr. Stedman admitted that the St. Louis war platform of the
Socialist Party was drawn 'in lurid language to meet a situation in
high flame,' but said no meeting could be called to consider
amending it because those who favored it might have been convicted
under the Espionage Act....
"Mr. Stedman contended that, of course, the Socialists took their
oath to uphold the Constitution of New York State and the United
States with the idea that they could interpret for themselves what
the Constitution means.
"'Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it
is understood by others.'"
According to the "New York World" of March 6, 1920, Stedman, in his
speech of the preceding day, justified Eugene V. Debs' lawbreaking with
the disgusting remark, "He had no conception of Jesus with a dagger in
his teeth;" and justified the lawbreaking for which Rose Pastor Stokes
was convicted with the sentence, "She had a right to disagree with the
war aims." She, of course, was not convicted for "disagreement" but for
wilfully interfering with the "recruiting service" of the United States
Government.
The "New York World" of March 6, 1920, also gives the following specimen
of Stedman's reasoning:
"Answering the charge that Socialists generally were guilty of law
violations, he exclaimed: 'Go down to the penitentiaries and get
the histories of the birds there and you won't find any Socialists.
"'We are quite willing to say that if 2,000 Socialists had been
arrested during the war, we are guilty.'"
It is difficult to follow this logic. After telling us that we wouldn't
"find any Socialists" in the penitentiaries, did Stedman suddenly
bethink himself of the scores convicted, and then, on the spur of the
moment, fix 2,000 as the number of "arrests" necessary to wring from
Socialists the confession, "We are guilty"? From a Socialist work,
Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 92, we quote the
following figures for Stedman's edification:
"The total number of prosecutions for violation of the Espionage
Act from June 15, 1917, to July 1, 1918, were 988. Of these, 197
pleaded guilty and were sent to prison, 166 others were convicted
(a large number appealing), and 497 cases were pending for trial
July 1st, while 128 had been acquitted or dismissed up to that
time. The act has been enforced _with increasing vigor since that
date_, but no official figures subsequent thereto are available."
According to Trachtenberg, pages 93 and 94, the above cases do not
include about 450 cases of "conspiracy to obstruct draft" under the
Penal Code and Draft Act, 30 prosecutions for threats against the
President, others under the treason statutes, and prosecutions under
state statutes and city ordinances, in "number," says Trachtenberg,
"doubtless _greatly in excess_ of the federal prosecutions," including
"in New York City alone scores of cases." A flock of 27 Socialists was
convicted at Sioux Falls, S.D. (Trachtenberg, page 92), and at Chicago a
herd of 166 I. W. W.'s, first cousins to the Socialists; while these
first cousins were also indicted in various places in batches of 47, 38,
27, 28, etc. (Ibid.) Nor do any of the foregoing figures include the
"arrests" of _two or three thousand "Communists" who were members of
Stedman's party prior to September, 1919_.
In short, even accepting Stedman's extraordinary dictum that "2,000
Socialists ... arrested" is the minimum necessary to force Socialists to
confess themselves "guilty," that test is more than met by the arrests
already known.
Martin Conboy, in summing up for the State in the proceedings before the
New York Assembly Judiciary Committee, on March 4, 1920, according to
the "New York Times" of March 5, 1920, accused the Socialist counsel and
witnesses of "evasive and hypocritical sentiments, expressed on the
witness stand, to throw the dust of political, parliamentary and
inoffensive acts into the eyes of this Committee and the correspondents
of the newspapers." On the other hand, he said, "the leaders of the
Socialist Party" lost "no opportunity" to "impress upon the rank and
file of that organization that it is impossible to achieve the ultimate
triumph of their cause by political action," in support of which he
cited the testimony in evidence as follows:
"Every manifesto, every platform, almost every utterance of the
Socialist orator carries with it the party mandate that the workers
of America should be organized industrially so as to be submissive
to the command of a revolutionary leadership.
"In adopting a programme of industrial action, involving the use of
the general strike, the Socialist Party has stripped itself of the
mask of political action and stands revealed as a radical
revolutionary propaganda organization.'"
Another part of Mr. Conboy's address we cite from the "Sun and New York
Herald" of March 5, 1920:
"The danger of revolution is more real than the nation realizes,
Mr. Conboy charged, saying that the Socialist Party seeks to set up
its rule here by the following 'unlawful methods':
"'Obstruction of the Federal and State governments in all measures
relating to defense, thereby rendering the nation defenseless
against the attack of enemies from without and within.
"'Destruction of government by mass action and insisting in all
teachings that political action must be backed by force.
"'By making its members and those elected to office responsible
only to its dues-paying members, thereby relieving its agents of
obligation to established government.
"'We are confronted with the necessity of determining how we shall
treat this group of persons who are in the United States but not
of it; who, while accepting the benefits of our laws and
constitutions and the sacrifices of blood and treasure given to
support them, refuse their support to them; who take all they can
get but will not give a life or a dollar to preserve, defend and
perpetuate the Government that is their sole and only guaranty of
life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness,' said Mr.
Conboy.
"'It is the first time since the rebellion of 1861 that notice has
been plainly and explicitly served upon the Government of the
United States by a group of men residing within its borders that
they will not support or defend it, but that they will by all means
obstruct and resist its effort to maintain in time of stress its
national honor and existence.
"'The Socialist Party of America is not a loyal organization
disgraced occasionally by the traitorous act of a member, but a
disloyal party composed of perpetual traitors.'"
Again, in a part of his address reported in the "New York Evening Sun"
of March 4, 1920, Mr. Conboy mentioned the fact that "at the National
Convention of the Socialist Party of America held in St. Louis," in
April, 1917, "its members were directed to deny and repudiate allegiance
to this Government," and added:
"The explanation of the anti-American attitude of the Socialist
Party of America during the war lies in the anti-national and
pro-international character of its programme. Its members are not
occasional but perpetual traitors, in constant conflict not merely
with the purposes of any temporary administration of the affairs of
this Government, but with the very institutions and fundamental
laws. They are citizens not of the United States, but subjects of
the Internationale, whose pronouncements are to be given their
moral support, a support which they not only withhold from but deny
to the Government of the United States.
"The principal exponent of this party, who appears here in the dual
capacity of witness in chief and counsel in chief, is the
international secretary for America of the International Socialist
Bureau."
To complete our information concerning the Moscow International, we add
here some details concerning its Executive Committee, and the right of
representation on it enjoyed by the affiliated "Parties" in other lands
than Russia, including, no doubt, the Socialist Party of America.
Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, in its article, "The Moscow
International Communist Conference" (held at Moscow, March 2-6, 1919),
says, page 312:
"The Conference ... perfected the organization of the new
International and entrusted the direction of the work to an
Executive Committee consisting of one representative from the
Communist parties of the more important countries. The parties in
Russia, Germany, German-Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden and
the Balkan Federation, were directed to send members to the
Executive Committee. Parties which have declared their adherence to
the new International will be given seats in the Executive
Committee, pending the arrival of delegates from other countries.
The members of the Committee from the country in which the
Executive Committee has its seat [Russia] were empowered to plan
the work of the new organization. The Executive Committee was
authorized to elect a bureau consisting of five members to do the
actual work of the Committee."
Has the Socialist Party of America contributed its Executive
Committeeman to this revolutionary machine? Even so, the orders, or
"suggestions," evidently come from the Bolshevist Bureau of Five who "do
the actual work of the Committee." Are these the Russian power that,
according to correspondence found in a raid of the Lusk Committee, has
already appointed Eugene V. Debs to reign over us "as 'Proletarian
Dictator' of the United States" as soon as the plotted revolution is
pulled off in this country? (See "The National Civic Federation Review"
for July 30, 1919.) Are these the power, too, according to report, that
induced the Italian Socialists and Syndicalists to postpone their
proposed revolution to a more convenient season? And was this to give
Soviet Russia a chance to put through a temporary peace or truce with
Europe to stave off "economic catastrophe?" If so, the twitching
revolutionaries in other lands must evidently train their toes to dance
at Moscow's convenience.
Meanwhile, under the International, the diabolical work of getting the
immoral elements ready for violence goes on in every land, including the
United States.
Let Hillquit excuse, extenuate, deny and palaver as he may, it remains
true that the Socialist Party of America teaches the same treasonable
doctrines of violence and insurrection as the Russian Bolshevists, but
in a more covert way. We have a sample in the pamphlet, "The
Dictatorship of the Proletariat," put in evidence on January 27, 1920,
in the inquiry of the Judiciary Committee at Albany. It is published by
the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, New York City, a part of the
Socialist Party of America. It says in part:
"Socialism does not believe in the State, wants to annihilate it
entirely. It holds that the task of the State has always been to
oppress the country in the interests of one class. So long as there
are classes in society which seek supremacy, the mastery, there
must be a State. But as soon as classes are eliminated the State
will have no justification for existence, and it will disappear of
itself.
"The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution. It
preaches to them the class struggle, awakens within them
class-consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for
Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the
Socialistic organization feels that the moment has come, it will
make the revolution.
"The dictatorship will be employed for the one thing, to eliminate
capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private
owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community. The
industries will be managed by the workingmen through their soviets.
"Let the true Socialists stand as sentinels; let them see that the
Socialist programs strike with hot, revolutionary blood. The great
task of the Socialist movement is to create an army in this country
which should be ready to make the Socialist revolution when the
suitable moment arrives. This army must know its aims and the
method of attaining these aims, must be an intelligent army. Every
soldier in it must himself know the way, the plans, the strategy."
In the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee to
and Including February 5, 1920," issued by counsel for the State, they
quote from the Yiddish book, cited above, referring to the printed
"Testimony," pages 199, 204 and 207, in proof that the Jewish Socialist
Federation, which published the book, is "part of the Socialist Party,"
and introducing their citations from the book with the very significant
remark, "Published in Yiddish the principles of Socialism were not
camouflaged as they frequently are in English." Bearing this in mind,
let us note how this plain-spoken book, which we cite from the State
counsel's "Outline," pages 31-34, gives the lie to Hillquit's camouflage
about "revolution" being "evolution." The book says:
"History teaches us that through evolution, through natural
developments alone, no ruling class in society has ever been
deposed from its power.... Workingmen cannot depend on '_peaceful_
evolution'; they must prepare for a revolution, and
class-dictatorship....
"To the Socialist at present, the meaning of class struggle,
Internationale and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, must be clear.
He must understand that Socialism is not a reform movement. He must
know that Socialism is a Revolutionary world-perspective, and that
the Socialist movement is a Revolutionary movement.... He must
cease to be a moral preacher and become a fighter. He must know
that the Socialist movement is a red movement, a movement with
blood in the veins, which knows that nothing in life can be won
without a struggle."
This is the real stuff, hid in a foreign tongue, with which Hillquit's
gang poisons the East Side of New York City, while the gang's leaders
lie to the American people.
Yet if the real plan is not to give us Socialism by "peaceful evolution"
but to impose it on us by "a revolution, and class-dictatorship," what
is the real object of the "political action" carried on meantime by
these hypocrites? Again the Yiddish book gives us the real thing:
"So long as the State is ... a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie
in the fight against the proletariat, ... why do the Socialists
seek to send their representatives there? Where do Socialists fit
into the State? What can they do there?
"Socialists seek to enter into the government for two reasons,
first, to be nearer to the doors of the chambers, where
dictatorship sits, and second to hinder the dictatorial work in any
way possible. The first reason is the most important. Sitting in
Parliament or in Congress, being inside of the government ranks,
affords Socialists an opportunity to find out the plans, the
strategy of the State. And knowing this, they can carry out the
propaganda the better."
If this is not treason--wickedness using "political party" methods both
as a mask and a blackjack to destroy the State--what is it?
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Ample proof has been given in this
chapter to show that there is a nation-wide conspiracy to destroy our
government and institutions and replace the Stars and Stripes by the red
flag. I. W. W.'s, Communists, Communist Laborites, Socialists and
Socialist Laborites have united under the leadership of the Bolshevist
Government of Russia. Their agents are everywhere, everywhere
hypocritically protesting that in our land freedom, of speech and
freedom of assemblage are no longer tolerated. Unless our loyal citizens
promptly rally to the defense of America, disorder, strife and rebellion
will be seething everywhere, the foundations of the glorious nation that
sprang from the blood of the brave soldiers of '76 will be completely
undermined, our country will be afflicted with evils far more grave than
those averted by the heroes who fought and died in 1812, and the land
that we love will fall a prey to the terrible ravages of crime,
lawlessness and anarchy.
We must save our country, and save it now. Now is the time to act--now,
before it is too late; and we must act so effectively and so vigorously
that the Socialists and all their allied, criminal, revolutionary crews
will wish that they never had seen a red flag or left their homes
abroad. They are conspiring enemies of our country. They are traitors to
the flag under which Washington and his soldiers fought for the
independence of America; traitors to the flag to whose defense the brave
men of 1812 rallied; traitors to the flag for which a million soldiers
suffered or died in our great Civil War. They are traitors to the flag
that symbolizes the union of countless happy homes under a democratic
government held in honor, respect and veneration. Traitors they are to
the flag that stands for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, and for the protection of individual as well as of family
rights. They are traitors to the flag of a much slandered and
calumniated government, which, though imperfect, like all things on this
earth, extends its blessings to all, not even excepting ungrateful
Socialists and other radicals.
Fellow citizens and fellow countrymen, rally to the defense of the flag
that you love! Denounce, to the north, south, east and west, the evil
teachings and deceptions of the Red conspirators; for there is nothing
that will more quickly ruin the parties of Reds than to reveal to the
world their professed and secret teachings.
"Immortal patriots, rise once more!
Defend your rights, defend your shore!
Let no rude foe with impious hand,
Invade the shrine where sacred lies
Of toil and blood the well earned prize.
While off'ring peace, sincere and just,
In heav'n we place a manly trust,
That truth and justice shall prevail,
And every scheme of bondage fail."