The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-22

graph OK the rate OF prOnLs
NOW as to the section Of my article
IN dealing with the corruption Of the
bureaucratic trade union officialdom
as we'll as a whole section Of the
upper strata Of skilled workers (the
labor aristocracyJ, thru their. share In
the super-prohts. Wolfe speaks OF
many mistakes" id this connection
but he does not show a single one. It
is untrue that the passage Is vague
OF that / fail to draw a distinction
between the union of1ciaidom and
the privileged workers making up the
labor aristocracy. 80 $50
/ say in my article (page 422 OF
the Workers Monthly:
at Is not only takers that are
corrupted in this way (thru share
In the super-profts), but the entire
crust of the trade union movement
the so-caIIed labor aristoeraey' con-
sistIng principally Of the most high
Iy skilled workers and workers en-
gagged in privileged trades"
On page 423 90 on to say: THE
whole matter Is not as simple as
the payment Of bribe-altho in
the case Of reactionary trade union
officials, bribery, "rake-offs" and the
awarding Of all sorts Of contracts
are no InconslderabIe item. :"
"As for the labor aristoeracy,"
continue, "its- share Of the super
profits comes primarily In the form
of Increased wages-and indeed all
other sources Of it's income (insur-
anee schemes, etc., really constitute
an addition to wages"
l explain that "the selling out Of the
reaetionary officials is in this sense
a special problem which the workers
will one day deal with as II deserves"
TN the passage quoted by Wolfe
l. quite out of its context am re-
ferring to the labor aristocracy and
not to the bureaucrats. Anyone who
takes the trouble to read the entire
paragraph from which this quotation
is distracted will convince himself Of
this at once.
stand by the paragraph exactly as
it is, and Wolfe's suggestion that I
might have meant to say former"
where said latter" is sheer non
sense.
Comrade Wolfe's "critique" closes
with q final misconception. He sets
forth the novel idea that the export
of capital does not help to build up
native capitalist class in the back
ward countries. According to him, it
is not the export of capital that Gre
ates the native bourgeoisie, but the
simple export Of commodities. Does
not Comrade Wolfe know that the
existence Of a powerful bourgeois
class in the. colonial and semi-colonial
countries is comparatively recent?
This class sprang into prominence
with the general industrial develop
ment of the colonies and semi-colo-
MES. a development which had been
Systematically retarded in the period
when export was primarily Of COM
modities, but which became an in
evitable concomitant OF the export
of capital
THE theses of the second congress
4 of the Comintern Declare:
sowing to the ImperIaIlst policy
of preventing Industrial develop
ment In the colonies, a proletarIan
class. In the strict sense Of the word
could not come Into existence until
recently. The Ingenious craft In
dustrIes were destroyed to make
room for the products of the CEN
tralIxed Industries In the Imperial
lstIe countries, consequently a ma
Jortty Of the population was driven
to the land to produce food, grains,
and raw materials for export to for
elan lands"
Obviously there could be no bour-
geoisie without. a proletariat. The en-
tire system of capitalism In the back
ward countries was advanced by the
export of capital from the imperialist
nations, The monopolistic holdings of