Results of the Illinois Miners Revolt wing.
even Who Has the «Leopard Spots. The result of the miners convention held at St. Louis on April 15 has already been characterized by us as another setback to the most recent rank and file revolt. It failed to materialize in the formation of a new union. But it does not for one moment invalidate the correctness of such a course.
For the miners there is still no other way out. The once proud United Mine Workers of America, in all of the soft coal producing territories, is shatterel its sorry remnants dragged into the gutter by the official leeches who still try to hang on to the graft from coal operators in reward for preventing union organization, In the first instanee, the failure to lay the foundation for a new union, now that this opportunity was available, must be charged to the Muste Howat type of progressiveg But there were other important contributing causes. Some of them were hemming in the sweep of the movement itself prior to the convention. We must not forget that the coal miners are still suffering from the pressure of serious defeats of not so long ago and reverses in numerons local struggles to maintain a semblance of union conditions, In addition the fields are ravaged by unemploy.
ment. Through all of this, the miners have continually had the sinister and powerful force of the combined coal operators, corrupt union fakers, and state police arrayed against them.
While these factors in a sense should count heavily for a new union movement, their effects naturally require great determination, driving power, and organization to overcome. This driving power was by no means furnished and could not be turnished by the Musteite progressives who became the leading factor. Their lack of decisiveness and inability really to furnish a progressive program came particularly to a hend at the convention when it faced the central issue.
Serious Weaknesses Still Prevail That the miners from the Illinois district would show considerable caution and more slowly despite their being thoroughly.
aroused by the treacherous Lewis Fishwick sell out agrement was to be expected. One need only remember the shattered expectations from their healthy revolt of one year which ended in the filthy harness of the so called reorganized Left wing of the National Miners Union, directed by the Communist party burenucrats. failed the miners then. This official Left wing failed the rank and file now.
It even went to the extreme stupidity of asking the miners to boycott the St. Louis convention.
What is the status of the miners now after this convention? Their position, while a precarious one, is still rich in possi.
bilities. Paradoxical as this may seem it is nevertheless true. And only boldness and decisiveness will make the latter factor weigh heaviest in the scale.
The St. Louis convention officially separated all of the miners locals represented there from the of Lewis, Walker, and Fishwick; but it failed to provide a national organization in its place. It thus failed really to provide the machinery of defensive and offensive for these miners.
Surely this is a weak position to be in.
It is one laying them just that much more open to attacks from the operators, the fakers, and the police. It is one also which in no way facilitates the organization of the unorganized fields. It can remain so only temporarily. But precisely in that lies its possibilites. We can therefore repeat: not only is there no other way out than the organization of a new national union, but this way out must be adopted as speedily as possible.
At the St. Louis convention the Musteite progressives seemed afraid of their own shadow. With a good delegation et hand, with a few scores of thousands of miners represented, they failed to provide them with an organization or even to lay the basis for such. Nevertheless a force is set into motion, and even for these progressives the die is cast. By the further conflict they have arrived with the of officialdom, they are compelled to yo a bit forward, even though with possible splits, or else, to step out. They will undoubtedly seek to establish themselves further as a definite factor in the mine fields. Thi her evidenced by their plans for another convention this summer.
Which Position Proved Correct? comparison of the position taken by each of the three Communist currents toward this revolt movement is illuminating, to say the least. Here where workers again groping for a way out; attempting to break from the terrible scourge of official corruption and treason with which the old union was infested. They had made a Arst sericome a distinct barrier. Thus the role of these progressives within and in relation to the movement: Yesterday in the camp of reaction, today progressive. while tomorrow standing pat and then again reBy ARNE SWABECK the Left Opposition views became the out actionary. Hence this conclusion: this standing banner bearers in the fight for a leadership must be replaced by the Left ous attempt with the formation of the Na new militant union; that there were certional Miners Union. This union became tain weakness in this fight we have already Victory for the coal miners can best an isolated sect and remained impotent pointed out. Nevertheless these delegates be assured when they rely solely upon their mainly due to the serious blunders of the succeeded in making clear their critical atown class forces. The next convention of party leadership. The Illinois miners made titude to the Musteite progressives. They the revolting elements planned for this another attempt in the revolt of a year ago made correct criticism of the party directed leading only to the disillusionment of the while simultaneously maintaining Bonner in questionably become an im portant step on this road. But it would present Lewis Fishwick agreement. Mean a correct attitude for unity of action of be quite clear that such an achievement while the is practically wiped the Communist vanguard.
is directly connected with and dependent out except in the anthracite. And What of the Future?
upon the ability to strengthen the forces there the scourge of official corruption and which really fight for a new militant untreason has been no less prevalent. ReThe failure of the present revolt move ion. The Miners Educational Leagues now cently the striking miners at the Glen ment to crystallize as yet into a new na organized at several points in Illinois can Alden mines and the Shamokin section of tional union will undoubtedly be taken ad become valuable instruments in this prothe lower anthracite, when appealing to vantage of by the coal operators jointly cess.
Lewis for assistance, were denounced by with the oflicials and backed up him with the most brutal cynicism. The It should be clear that these leagues by the state police. They will endeavor if lesser officials could on that basis proceed should specifically be made the instrupossible to crush this movement before it ments of the Left wing. Ours is the task to defend the mine owners interests. In assumes too definite proportions.
That the unorganized fields of Pennsylvania, of imbuing them with the necessary spirit the miners, however, will know how to Ohio and West Virginia soft coal regions, and clarity of purpose and to fully estabfight back is already indicated in Indiana, Ish the left wing leadership within them.
whatever is left of this union is notoriousin Kentucky, as well as in the anthracite ly known to be only the unorganized gange In their activities these Leagues should by Glen Alden and Shamokin Valley strikes.
all means use every possible pressure toof gunmen who seek to prevent union or ganization from coming into being.
As far as the reformists of the Muste ward the definite building of a new national school are concerned the following is well union upon the local and district Policy The Right Wing and the Center Make to bear in mind: At certain periods reCommittees which are established by the Their Position Clear formists are compelled to take a progress St Lou convention decision. The further In this situation the Right wing cur ive direction. Inevitably they will again poliey of fighting for amalgamation with rent, the Lovestone group. proposes their revert to reformism. One year ago the cther revolting sections and with the Nasolution as follows: Musteites went into a combination with the tional Miners nion remains as correct as Therfore, what is to be done? Only Fishwick Walker reactionaries.
But the before. We of the Left Opposition again one thing! To organize now a new nationminers revolt movement, when the forces propose a united front with the party for al union of coal miners would only increase become renlly unleashed, will develop unity of the Communist vanguard in the the division and confusion in the rank of much faster than the progressiveism of struggle toward this goal.
the workers.
the Mustcites and go beyond these narrow There will be no renuine Left wing The fight therefore must be taken up confines. Since the ultimate solution of without the building of the Communist in spite of all difficulties in the the working class can be found only through forces. In this sense we urge the ComA. to organize a Left wing to organize a revolutionary action. the reformists, when munist coal miners to build the Left Comrank and file opposition. That is the only reverting to their natural position. be munist Opposition directly in the fields.
solution. Revolutionary Age, 25 1931. True to their position, the Right wing advocates going back to the Lewis. union.
This is condemnable not merely in view of the fact that this union is decaying and While reading the Marel Issue of the ure of work. Several times comrade Oehler its remnants becoming utilized by corrupt Proletarian the official organ of the Pro who, as a Marxist, is at least equal to the officials as a means of preventing any letarian party, a little item directed at the best they have, proposed to them that he struggles to better the conditions of the Left Opposition of the caught the be allowed to speak at their forum on the miners. That by itself is not the major Writer attention. The article which is question of socialism in ons country and consideration. No, by far of greater conwritten up under the hending of arty several other important subjects. He was.
sequence is the fact that in face of the Notes (Chicago) takes issue with certain turned down flat while a number of college existing revolt such advocacy, when brought statements made in the one and only arti professors, trade union liberals and other forward in the name of working class cle clealing with the Proletarian party that noindescript speakers were accepted for policies, brands the Lovestoneites for exhas appeared in the Militant up to the pre speaking dates. We do not question the actly what they are in this case: Definitely sent date. The statement which drew most right of the to select whomever they to the right of even the Musteite proof the writer was one which choose as speakers but the attitude manigressives. the handle at which the capispoke of interest shown by some of the fested by certain leaders in excluding talist forces and the old union bureaucrats menders in the fundamental questions comrade Oehler from speaking on these pull to endeavor to prevent the revolt, to raised by the Left Opposition and inter subjects is, we suggest, a little more than prevent the building of a militant union. preted this is the healthiest sign of a akin to the methods used by the American Is there any difference in this from the ferment in the ranks of the that has Stalinists.
been role of the social reformists?
seen for years.
Another incident that came to my mind How did the Centrists square their The statement is vigorously denied. Actook place at one of their forums. Novak position toward this revolt? We have re cording to the writer there is not even who was the speaker delivered a lecture ported their policy of boycott during the a ripple let alone a ferment in the calm on the five year plan. His lecture was pre convention period as expressed in lent waters of the very little different than usual ballyhoo lets issued by the This amounted Probably the best proof that the article stuff put out by the Stalinists on the same in sum and substance to boycott of the in the Militant was not far from correct subject. In the discussion the writer raised movement itself. There followed the feeis the indignant manner in which the the question of socialism in one country ble attempt, at least formally, though not writer denies its truth. Experience teaches and other basic questions written upon by in reality, and too late to have any effect that where there is so much smoke there comrade Trotsky. In the rebuttal Novak upon the convention, to make a 180 degree is apt to be a bit of fire. But since the practically disposed of these questions turn toward a correct position. It was writer claims that the Militant was by simply calling Trotsyy a scoundrel. So contained in Foster belated article in the miles and miles from the truth we might far as know not a single leader Daily Worker, proposing that the miners ask why it was necessary to pass a motion protested against this line of argument, attend the convention and form a united that no member should discuss the However, a few rank and file members did front with the question of Socia in one country, the tell me they not only considered the ansThe Position of the Left Opposition main tendencies in the and other dis wers to my questions bad but the manner puted questions, with the Left Opposition of answering them improper coming from From the very inception, only the members, shortly after the article appear this leading anti Trotsky theoretician.
Left had a correct revolutionary position.
ed in the militant? We understand that Whether the leopard became spotted We stated immediately that the first step such a motion was passed (if it is not so through close association with the Stalinof the revolt must be complete separation we would be glad to be informed) and it ists or was contaminated by a too ardent from the reactionary capitalist lieutenants.
strikes us that such a motion would be use perusal of the Stalinist controlled Inprecor We proposed to follow up directly with the less if no interest in these questions were by one Don Stanislaus. Novakinsky of organization of a new militant union as being manifested by any of the mem little importance. The examples set forth the only way out. We proposed further, bers.
here bear the unmistakable earmarks of as a means toward building one union of While the writer was neither the au the original sin that the leaders all coal miners, to work for an amalgamathor of the article that appeared in the frequently complain against.
tion of all the revolting sections with the Militant nor the author informer he can Wo appealed to the party to We, of course, do not know if the say without falsehood that in his limited at this time will see fit, at its forthaccept a united front of the Communist contact with members (I would be coming convention, to inke a clear cut vanguard to work for this correct policy.
the last to claim that it is extensive not stand on the important questions before the In politics the logic of a correct posia few them did show more than a pess International Communist movement and tion when applied brings its own definite ing interest in the disputed questions in thereby align itself more closely ideologiconclusion: particularly so in revolutionthe International Communist movement. cally with one of the three factions in the ary politics. And so also hete. When conMoreover, the answers to the questions put International (even if not organizationally. fronted with the position taken by the to him were not such as could be gleaned or whether it will merely procrastinate. But Left, the party was compelled to make a from reading the articles in the Proletarian we sincerely hope the latter will not be the change. And willy nilly, despite all the dealing with Trotskyism which appeared case. So far as the general characteristic Stalinist denunciations of us, in actual under the signature of Stanley Norak. of the are concerned the Chicago Left practise they could not reject our united Question of Leopards Opposition regards them in the main as front proposal. Delegate Dan Winnigan of an honest, sincere, hard working group, alIndiana, the only supporter of the official The article referred to us as be though we do not agree with thein cui many party views, and we asume, wit way most inga leopard spotted in the questions. In our contact with them we honest intentions, became the first direct as the old leopard. This should supporter have always been friendly, cordial, straightcomrade Allard motion entitle us to take least one glance at forward and above aboard just as we hafe the St. Louis convention to proceed and the leopard. One of the chief conbeen toward every other sincere working build a new union now. It would be tentions of the against the has class group. We not only stand ready but well for party members and Communist always been that the latter would not diswill be more than glad to discuss quesworkers to reflect deeply over this com cuss questions of program with them. Early tions important to the working class with parison of positions. Not only that, but in the winter our Chicago group proposed them at all times. We have no doubt that alslo to draw the necessary conclusons. an inter group discussion with the such discussions will be mutually beneficial.
For us it was an achievement of no on the question of American program.
small importance that delegates supporting The declined, giving as a reason press JOHN MIHILIC.