The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-22
A REPLY TO WOLFE'S
UNGRITICA "CRITIQUE''
tcontinued from PAGE D

any peaCe1ul period or capitalism
would have to fit neatly within the
confines of the period Of the hege-
mony of the textile industry. It is
true that the rapid growth and domi-
nant position of the textile industry
furnished the basis for what Lenin
has termed the "so-called peaceful
development of capitalism" But how?
Not simply, as Wolfe tells us, "be-
cause the struggle for markets with
textile products as the typical ex-
port does not require spheres of in
f1uence, colonies, the intervention of
states and armies, ETC., but also by
the very fact Of the expansion Of the
market itself Capitalism was boil
ing over" within it's narrow state
confines and the expansion Of the
market provided an escape valve. 1t
was this that made possible compare
tive class peace" in the home coun-
tries of capitalism. To conceive OF
the peaceful" phase of capitalist his
tory apart from the development of
the class struggle, as Wolfe appar-
entity does, is undialectical and un-
feminist. That the leaders of the
Communist International do not have
any such conception, is shown by the
quotation from Bukharin's speech at
the fourth congress, given above.
"How are we to combat socialist
Jinqoism7" asks Lenin in his PAM
phlet on 1.-THE Collapse of the Second
International" "The latter is oppor-
tunism which has become ripe, strong,
and impudent. during the long, COM
parativeIy peaceful era of capital
ISM" (page 53.)
Was this the second and third quar-
tiers of the 18th century? Was it in
the revolutionary upheavals of 1880,
1S4S and 1871 that opportunism be-
came ripe, strong and impudent? Or
was it in the parliamentary epoch
which followed?
OUPER-PROFITS played their role
~ in the development of the so-caIled
f.peaesfRl- peFieds 1t is very import
ant to bring this out here, because
from the fact that he cannot think
of super-profits except as an attribute
of the later period of world imperial
ism. To him they belong only to the
warlike era of capitalism whereas
actually they were one of the bases
for the establishment of the peace
full period"
Bukharin, in his answer to Boris at
the fifth congress of the Comintern,
quotes Marx as follows:
-. 3. Say, in his comments on
Constanzie's translation of Ricardo,
made just one correct observation
on foreign trade. Profits can also
be made by cheating. One wins
what the other loses. Gains and
losses within country cancel each
other. But this is not the case be-
tween various countries. And even
according to Rcardo's own theory
which Say does not notice-three
working days Of one country can be
exchanged for one working day of
another. Here the law Of values
must ne essentially mooined. Or,
as highly skilled, complex labor
within country contains a certain
proportion Of unskIIIed simple labor,
so the working days Of one country
can bear certain proportion to
the working days Of another eoun-
try. In such case the richer eoun-
try exploits the poorer. :"
And Bukharin adds: "The decisive
factor Is that we clearly see that this
doctrine Of super-profits Of richer
countries is an entirely MARKHAM doc.
trine."
In the paragraph quoted Marx is
dealing with super-profts realized In
trade, quite before the epoch of world
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES which can
be realized from the sale of flannel
underwear as well as from the sale
OF iron and steel.
TN my article on Labor and Empire
referred to the so-called peace
81