The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-04-05

fore more acceptable-is the histori-
cal dictum of ]. B. S. Hardman in the
March issue Of the american Labor
Monthly"
Now, there are many ways in which
history can be written. But there is
only one good way, the correct and
scientific way, whose first prere-
quisite is: searching after facts. First
get your facts and then build your
theory. Our estimable J. B. S. Hard
man has gone about the matter the
other way round. He first invented
theory Ia philosophy Of history, if
you please), and then proceeded to
fashion the facts to fit his theory.
The result is historical analysis
which "proves" a case--his own case
against the Communist International
and its American section.
But let US take up his history first.
]. B. S. finds that within the Com
munist International, altho dominat-
ed by Lenin and guided by the spirit
of MARKHAM philosophy, 'traces of
former leaders and thinkers are
clearly discernible." A very inno-
cent and harmless statement, indeed.
Surely the Communist International
is not the beginning of all begin
nings, neither is Lenin, nor is Marx
for that matter. Into the making of
the Communist International have
gone the tested and proven ideas and
experiences of generations Of pro-
letarian struggle. History-any kind
Of history-means first of all con-
tinuity of development. But what
does this prove?
Well, ]. B. S. Hardman has not
made the above statement for moth
ing. 1t was done for purpose, which
becomes apparent Immediately upon
learning that perhaps (the
tracey ). of Blanqui is one of the
most conspicuous influences in the
Communist world organization, and
it may do to enter into an analysis
Of the Communist international with
a glimpse into this particular social
philosophy"
So, there you are. The philosophy
of Blanqui was one of the most con-
spicuous influences in the Commune
ist International. Well, that is not
new. Read the literature of the So
cial-patriots and betrayers Of the
working class the world over and you
will find there not merely traces of
what J. b. S. says now, but the very
same thing verbatim. Our good, old
friend J. B. S. is here merely re-
peating Kautsky, Scheidemann, Mac
Donald and all the rest of the noble
knights of the End International.
And if we would care to go little
deeper into history, we could remind
was the first big charge against the
Bolsheviks preferred by the Menshe-
vik Brotherhood as far back as the
year 1903-1904. Lenin, according 20
his menshevik opponents in the old
Russian Social-Democratic Labor
Party, was the father of the Blanquist
Revival in Russia. So that's that.
1t is apparent that ]. B. S. is not
exactly in love with the Communist
International. He simply does not
like it. He never did. The reason?
Well, the Communist International is
not precisely what he would like it to
be. It does not come up to his con-
ception of taste. yes, Revolutionary"
JdSIe, 1OT Jul AthdSiHdIlNe HiSCOTidH
of the American Labor Monthly"
is man of taste and what he terms.
culture.
However, this is beside the point.
Celebrating further on his charge
against the Communist International,
j. B. S. Hartman defines Blanquism
as a belief in permanent proletarian
instruction" And after having sat-
isfied himself that this definition
offers a suitable weapon Of attack. he
proceeds to deliver himself of the
following historical truth:
Gin the first year or two of its life,
the Communist International came
very near satisfying the above cited
ideal of the Blanquists: it had too
much Of the tendency to become a
permanent organization of prole-
tartan Instruction"
Proletarian insurrectionl What a
contemplate thing, particularly per-