26 THE WORKERS COUNCIL certain principles or tactics, as proposed by the Third International, should be carried on within the International, and not from without. The Sm cialist Party of the United States must, therefore, give its wholehearted support to the Third International and must arrange its organization and propaganda accordingly. The Committee for the Third shall develop a systematic and ersistent campaign of propaganda for afﬁliation With the Third, utilizing for the pur»
pose all the available space in the party press, as well as other sympathetic publications, the forums and business meetings of the part organizations etc. Particular stress shall be lai on the perio of propaganda prior to and during the coming party convention. For this purpose, the committee, or its local and regional representatives shall. be obliged to secure speakers and provide appropriate literature for all oroanizations where the matter of the Third is up for discussion and action. Anna 15, 1921. The Committee for the Third is aware of the diﬁiculties it is likely to encounter along the lines of publicity. It is therefore advisable that ways and means shall be considered for the establishment of a publishing group of its oWn, or to afﬁliate with sympathetic Workers publishing institutions for the purpose of procuring all the necessary pamphlets, and a periodical publication. The Committee for the Third International, of the Socialist Party of the United States.
Among the original signers of this call are the following, who were delegates to the 1920 Socialist Party convention: Louis Envdahl, Chicago.
Steven Bircher, Newark, N, Benjamin Glassberg, New York.
Alexander Trachtenberg, New York.
Samuel Holland, Chicago.
Charles Kolarik, Chicago. Salutsky, New York.
The Plight of the American Farmer By PROF. AirrnUB CALHOUN With very few exceptions, the agricultural group in the United States is miserably Victimized by the current economic system. There are a few farmers, perhaps, whose landownership more than offsets the amount to which they are explorted by the capitalist system of exchange; but in most instances the economic advantage of proprietorship is. undoubtedly far from compensating for the disadvantage of having to o erate under the conditions of an un ust and inc cient business regime. If the American farmer had enough information and enough training in logical thought, he would be an absolute revolutionist instead of an occasional msurgent.
If statistics carried conviction, it would be easy to prove to the typical farmer that he belongs to the labor group and that he is in no sense a beneﬁciary of the current system. Figuring a moderate wage for the farmer and the members of the family who work with him, we ﬁnd that his interest as a laborer is far in excess of his stake as a proprietor. Ordinarily, however, the farm family does not receive anything like a fair labor income and if the facts were thorough familiar the farmer would have to reckon himse as the victim of a sweated industry. It is largely the fact that farm ownership provides a stea y job and, Where the land is good, yields an element of property income to supplement or conceal the smallness of the labor income that obscures the real situation and sustains the capitalist psychology on the farm. further element in the farmers resistance to communistic proposals is the general confusion between the farmstead as an industrial plant and as a homestead. The advantages of homeownership are assumed, and then the concept is unwittingly extended to cover the whole farm, as if the whole area were the home. In realit. much of the beneﬁt of having a sure place of a ode is negatived by the fact that the family is required to live in the midst of the industrial plant and can never for a moment forget the overwhelming responsibility for all the multifarious details of a complicated economic operation which in most instances has to be carried on with insuﬁicient capital and with no assurance of reasonable returns. The real charm of the farm home consists, not in the grain ﬁelds and the cattle pastures, but in the garden, the orchard, the poultry yard, and the other incidental surroundings of the rural home, which usually are intended primarily for family use and only incidentally as yielding a product for sale on the market. It is true that many a farm income is considerably augmented by the sale of products from these sources, but they are secondary considerations to the average general crop farmer. Moreover the claims of his economic plant éhis ﬁeld agriculture) very often entirely oversha bring it to pass that his barns and machinery show an abundance of up to date equipment while the home is still primitive and desolate of the essentials of comfort and health. The home loses rather than gains by its close association with an industrial process. Indeed over large areas, the farm po ulation has no kitc en gardens and no orchards an absolute none of the other features that are sup osed to orify rural life. The South is covered wit a pauperized population of helpless serfs whose life in the home is substantially equivalent to the horrors of the slum. socialist approach to the rural problem will have to include such considerations as the shrinking proportions of the farm population; the increasing proportion of farm tenancy in such areas as possess sufﬁcient fertility to yiel a considerable economic rent; the enormous burden of farm mortgages, whose horror is much the same whether they rest upon a man working out of tenancy in the direction of possible unencumbered ownership or upon a farmer whose ownershi is slipping away from him; the oppression of e whole far min class by the purveyors of machinery, supplies, an ow the needs of the home and Ann. 15, 1921.
credit, and by the system through which the are forced to market eir products. If it co (1 be vividly presented to the farmers in its apalling detail that their multifarious reform projects of the past ﬁfty years, whether along the lines of drives for ﬁnancial relief, for control of carriers and warehouses, for subju ation of the big manufacturing interests with which they have to contend, for the development of co operative agencies, has yielded paltry results entirely incommensurate with the efforts expended, there would he a new state of mind among the rural proprietors. Moreover there exists over large sections of the country an agricultural wage proletariat whichcomes in the same class as the victims of the steel mills and the metal mines.
There is no use of fumbling the situation. For socialists to concede private operation of agriculture is falsity to the principles of the movement; not so much because provision for private proprietorship in this ﬁeld after the weight of external exploitation had been removed from it, would erect a specially privileged class as because it is imposTHE WORKERS COUNCIL 27 sible for small scale, planless farming to feed the World. We must be not merely consistent, but also frank With the farmer. It ought to be made clear that general agriculture will have to be conducted on an enormous scale according to methods a roxmating the exactness and mechanism of tlie actor y system and that no vestige of private ownership or control can be allowed to remain. It must be made eipially clear that there shall be a reconstruction rural life that will guarantee to each family the inalienable roccupanc of a suitable home With as much space and facilities as may be desirable for garden, family orchard, poultry, and dairy, according to the tastes of each family. Thus the valuable elements of the present system may persist (in much improved form) and at the same time the demands of the consuming population may be satisﬁed. It is entirely possible to work out a line of appeal that will commend itself to the common sense of the vast majority of the agricultural population as soon as they can by some means be ifted out of the fog of the capitalist dictatorship.
The Resurrected Second International By LUDWIG Louie The conference of the 21 International that was held in Vienna from the 25th to the 28th of February was met with open hostility byI the supporters of the Third International everyw ere. Their opposition Was more than the prejudiced criticism of a political opponent. It was rooted in the conviction that this new International is only an endeavor to resuscitate the old Socialist International, under a new ﬁrm name. Certainly there is nothing that divides the leading spirits of the from the old Second International, but their attitude on war policies. Beyond that they are heart and soul in accord. Friedrich Adler, the press agent of the Vienna Conference, expresses is quite openly in a letter written to Ramsay Macdonald, now secretary of the Second International. Circumstances have forced us in the last tWo years, in order to clarify our position upon political questions of immediate importance, to discuss freuently and at some length our differences with the hird International. Those points that separate us from the Second International have, meanwhile, been left practically without discussion, because they are concerned, in the main, with socialist p0 licies during the war. discussion of principles with the Second Intematonal will be, above all, a dis«
cussion of socialist action in times of war, of that position which we have become accustomed to call social patriotism.
Friedrich Adler ﬁnds it unnecessary to discuss the policies of the Second after the war. He knows nothing of Noske massacres, he has for otten Scheidemann coalition manoeuvres, he no onger remembers Thomas ministerialism, he recalls neither Branting short lived ministerial honors nor Henderson or Clynes strictly socialistic labor policies that left the cart of the British Labor movement hopelessly stuck in the mud. If the Second International, the letter goes on, whose secretary you have become, to our reat surprise, consisted only of persons of your ca ibre all further discussion would be superﬂuous. Somez hOW. thlS asurance sounds strongly like the AntiSemite who had a habit of assuring every Jew with whom he came in contact, Ah, dear Sir, if all Jews were like you, there would be no Anti Semites.
But Adler ﬁnds it necessary to prove beyond all doubt, that only mere formalities divide himself and his colleasgues of the 21 from Ramsay Macdonald a nd the econd. For this reason he deﬁnes his position toward the Russian revolution so as to leav e no doubtas to where he stands.
It was this anarchyin the International that gave Lenin the oppprtunit to throw the workinoclass, not only of ussia, at of the whole world, into one of the most dangerous experiments, without consulting the representatives of the classconscious proletariat in other countries. Thus the leadin personalityof the new International takes his stand deﬁnitely and aggressively against the Russian revolution. The presence and active articipa 11:3 of lglartow an. bramoevgitz in the anference a in e commi tees serv on what was already obvious. y to underscore. Nevertheless the creation of the International, whatever. may become of it, was inevitable. It gives expression to the natural after war development of those proletarian parties which do not a prove, on the one hand, of open coalition with e ourgeois government, and which, on the other cannot be content with a negative position of thd working class parties in every country. The world war which ended not with a proletarian revolution but with a military victrgzy of one of the two imperi alist c groups, did not ize the cherished hopes of the loyal workers. They had behaved what their labor umon and party leaders had told them, had