The daily worker., 1924-08-15


get! Negation Of super profits, mega
ton of the wage-relations of the labor
aristocracy, a theory of wartime pros
perity, and consequently justification
of the social-patriotic attitude during
the war; whole theory about crises,
the social-democratic doctrine about
the continuity of the process of pro-
duction. 1t has quite a number of
passages which sound very radical,
but behind these radical words we
have the foulest social democratic
trash.
And it is this thing that the super
wise Boris uses for his attack against
us on the national question, on the
colonial question, on the question Of
the united front, on the question of
specialization and so forth and so forth.
These are sufficient to illustrate what
the discussion is really about.
Why Boris Is Discussed.
repeat, have dealt with Comrade
Boris at considerable length, not be-
cause l consider his arguments inn
portant, but in order to show that even
in our own ranks there are social dem
ocratic notions, which we must COM
bat with the utmost vigor
If such things are written by the
Left" comrades, they are even more
dangerous, because when the Left
comrades, whose tactical and political
orientation is quite proper, indulge in
such foolish talk, they compromise the
entire political orientation of the
Left" wing.
We cannot be swayed by sympathy,
we must protest in the most emphatic
manner against such irrelevance, and
expose the comrades in question. An
other reason why l spoke so much
about Boris was because of the pecul-
lar construction of his brain, and the
crude form in which he put his theory
1 would now like to touch upon an
other theoretical question which was
omitted in our previous discussions,
viz. the question of crises; not of cri-
ses as specific phenomenon of the
transition period, but of crises in gem
eral. AS you know, a theoretical dis
cussion on the theory of crises is 60
ing on in MARKHAM circles.
Anarchy of Production.
There are two formulas which are
fundamentally different (dispropor-
tionality, and under-consumption) We
must have a formula which will ex-
press the contradiction between pro-
duction and consumption as a COM
ponent part of the anarchy Of produc-
ton. l will deal with this more fully
on another occasion.
l believe that in our draft program
we must be somewhat more cautious
in formulating the process of the de-
cay of capitalism. We already see
the empirical fact that on the whole
we are facing the process of capitalist
decay, but within this great process
we see also partial processes of regen-
Grafton
Proceed Cautiously.
Consequently, the picture is more
checkered than we have thot it to be,
and the checkered nature of the pro-
cess of capitalist decay should cause
us to proceed more cautiously in our
future formulations than we have
done hitherto. For this reason we
must give a somewhat more exhaust
i've definition and clearer description
Of the transition period.
Without going into long coments,
shall point out a few things We
must elaborate more clearly our ideas
upon the period of the two processes,
the fundamental processes of the pro-
letarian revolution in itself does not
yet constitute the world revolution,
that there are also other disruptive
processes which have a revolutionary
sense, e.g. the national crises. OF
course, if we consider these crises as
isolated phenomena, they do not by
any means constitute proletarian revo-
lutions.