"Farewell to the Eleven: Letter to the Editor of the New York Call," by Algernon Lee [March 24, 1917] Rand School of Social Science head Algernon Lee issues a quick response to the pro-war declaration of Graham Phelps Stokes, C.E. Russell, William English Walling, Upton Sinclair, and 7 other leading Socialists (published in the edition of the New York Call that same day). "The 11 are ready to support the government in any sacrifice it may require," writes Lee. "Of them it will require but one, and that one they have already made -- the sacrifice of their class loyalty and their political independence. For the rest, they will support the government in forcing thousands of boys to sacrifice their lives; in forcing our unions to sacrifice their right to strike; in forcing our party to sacrifice freedom of speech and press; in forcing the whole working class to sacrifice its hopes of social reform and of emancipation from class rule." The 11 signatories have by their action helped pave the wary for Prussian-style conscription, militarization of the schools, draconian censorship, and unfettered 1798-style "Anti-Sedition" legislation, Lee believes. The 11 social-patriots have "thrown upon the scrap heap whatever power they might have had to defend working class interests in the time of trial and enlisted themselves for noncombatant service in the domestic war for the supremacy of capital," Lee declares.

 

"Who Says "Farewell"? Letter to the Editor of the New York Call," by A.M. Simons [April 5, 1917] Socialist Party founding member and former editor of the International Socialist Review Algie Simons comes to the defense of the social-patriots Stokes, Russell, Walling, Ghent, Sinclair & Co. against the criticism of Algernon Lee. "I would not have subscribed to everything in the statement of Stokes, Russell, Walling, et al.," says Simons, "but any Socialist could far better have signed that than the official statements of the NEC." Simons takes Lee to task for failing to protest "the indifference of party officials" to German submarine attacks of American shipping and other aspects of German propaganda and sabotage. "Algernon Lee would read out of the party everyone who refuses to bend the knee to Prussian autocracy and militarism or dares to stand in defense of democracy, Socialism, and humanity in an international struggle. Is he quite sure that he is the whole Socialist Party and can say 'farewell' to all who disagree with him?" Simons asks. He aggressively adds that "if Lee is authorized to say 'farewell' to every Socialist and every American in the Socialist Party, then, of course, we must go. But some of us who love Socialism and the Socialist Party more than we do the German kaiser and his form of autocracy will fight before we go."

 

"Fighting Big Capital: Letter to the Editor of the New York Call," by S.J. Rutgers [April 8, 1917] Left Wing Socialist Seybold Rutgers again raises his voice for "mass action" to advance the Socialist cause, citing the February Revolution in Russia as indicative, even if not a direct model for activity in America. Writes Rutgers: "What made the Russian mass action so particularly interesting to us is the fact that it shows practically that forms of action can be used with success quite different from the rigid, centralized, boss-ruled unions of the AF of L. And what makes it still more interesting is the fact that this form of action originated under and had results during the rule of the Iron Heel of an unscrupulous autocracy. This means that results were possible under conditions which lately developed, and continue to develop, in the United States, ruled by the money kings of Wall Street. Furthermore, the best results by the Russian mass action were gained in those centers where industry was most developed." If the IWW has been so far unsuccessful at organizing the steel industry, for example, at least they had done a better job than the AF of L, which had "not even attempted seriously to organize those industrial slaves." Rutgers declares that "the old methods fail and the old labor bureaucrats fail to see the new methods. To see them would mean to see their own doom as a mighty and privileged group. So the new methods have to develop from the bottom up and against the stubborn resistance of the old 'leaders.'"

 

"'Have We a Country to Defend?' Letter to the Editor of the New York Call," by William M. Feigenbaum [April 10, 1917] Prominent Socialist journalist William Feigenbaum writes in answer to the Left Wing "dogmatists" Edward Lindgren and M.D. Graubard in arguing that the working class does in actual fact have a country to defend. "The poor worker -- no matter how poor -- HAS a home. It may be a few poor rooms in a tenement. It may be a shack in a mining camp. But he has a home, and the few sticks of furniture that he has purchased with so much sacrifice, the few ornaments, the few dishes, mean more in actual life stuff to him than all the palaces of millionaires, who have homes in every summer and winter resort in the land." Further, Feigenbaum argues that it does matter whether the working class is subjected to one or another variant of national capitalism, that "to say that it makes no difference who exploits us -- Germans or Japs or Americans -- is to write oneself down as an imbecile." Feigenbaum states that the Socialist Party need not fly in the face of reality with inane slogans about the working class having no country, but should rather make the clear case that though there might be "great harm in a (hypothetical and improbable) invasion and occupation of this nation by another nation," there would result "far more harm in international war." "Let us not be fools, writes Feigenbaum: "We have a fine case against international war. Let us not spoil our perfectly good case by asinine 'arguments.' Our great fight is against capitalism."

 

"Corridor Convention Chat," by Charles W. Ervin [April 11, 1917] This is a folksy, Appeal to Reason-style smorgasbord of short profiles of delegates to the St. Louis Emergency National Convention of the Socialist Party. Of particular interest is the substantial review of the ideas of former NEC member Arthur LeSeuer, who viewed the task of the Socialist Party not to win election for its own sake, but rather to serve as a sort of ideological vanguard for the two old parties, winning piecemeal adoption of its program yet remaining staunchly independent of the old parties and always winning the hearts and minds of the public and demanding more. Also of note is the extensive series of profiles of female delegates, who included Kate O'Hare, Anna Maley, Jane Tait, Kate Sadler, Mary Garber, Maud Ross, Margaret Prevey, Ida Biloof, Jennie McGene, Mary Raoul Millis, and Elda Conly.

 

"Socialists Abolish National Committee: Convention Marked by Stirring Scenes Over Question of Constitutional Revisions," by Charles W. Erwin [April 13, 1917] While the question of the Socialist Party's position towards the European war assumed the greatest place on the agenda of the 1917 Emergency National Convention, organizational restructuring was also an object of attention. This news account from the New York Call reviews the major changes in the SPA's structure implemented by the St. Louis Convention. The National Committee, a body composed of state representatives which had met annually, was abolished. In place of the NC, an expanded National Executive Committee was launched, consisting of 15 members (instead of the previous 5), 3 of which were to be elected by each of 5 geographic districts. In this way, regional diversity would be assured, while the unwieldy and functionally duplicate National Committee would be replaced by a more streamlined and effective body. Meanwhile, an effort to open up membership in the Socialist Party to members of other political organizations, such as the Non-Partisan League, was defeated by a vote of 113 to 51. Finally, the bane of the Socialist Party's Left Wing, the controversial Section 6 of Article 2 which mandated expulsion of any party member who "opposes political action or advocates crime, sabotage, or other methods of violence as a weapon of the working class to aid in its emancipation" was stricken with little acrimony. The latter provision, enacted by the 1912 Convention and ratified by referendum, had been the cause of the mass departure of the syndicalist Left Wing in 1912-13 and was an ongoing aggravation to the element of the Socialist Party which had limited faith in the efficacy of parliamentarism.

 

"Reorganizing the International: Resolution of Socialist Party, Boston Lettish Branch No. 2," by Karlis Janson & J. Kreitz [pub. April 15, 1917] This resolution of Lettish Branch #2 of Boston, Socialist Party, while commending the efforts of the NEC to rejuvenate an international Socialist organization, took issue with the effort to revive the moribund 2nd International, rendered inoperative by the social-patriotism of its leading parties with regards to the European war. Instead, international organization should be rendered through the "International Socialist Commission of Berne," the resolution declares. The NEC should thus rescind its decision to call directly a meeting of the 2nd International's Bureau for the purpose of convening a Congress of that body, the resolution indicates. Organizer of Boston Lettish Branch 2 was Karlis Janson (note correct spelling of surname), better known as one of the 3 members of the Comintern's "American Agency" in 1920-21 under the pseudonym "Charles Scott" or the Americanized version of his name, "Charley Johnson."

 

CLICK THE LOGO AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE TO GO TO THE EARLY AMERICAN MARXISM WEBSITE.