The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-04-24
Oneal Again Discourses on American History

THE recent drift Of the rank and file
l. and many of the leading elements
of the socialist party toward co-opera-
ton with the Workers (Communist)
Party is extremely disconcerting to
Mr. James Oneal, erstwhile editor of
the defunct New York Call and now
serving in that capacity on the weekly
publication.
In spite of the lies, the demagogy,
the sophistry, the contumely, used
against us by such as Oneal, our tao
tics and our insistence upon the unit
ed front of all working class elements
in order more effectively to fight for
the elementary demands of the work
ing class have broken thru the bar
riers of prejudice to the sincere ele-
ments who still remain in the socialist
party.
The Oneals, the Cahans, the Hill
quits and others of that calibre sue
ceeded for a time in melting the men,
bers Of their party against us because
we had not yet made our impress suf-
fciently strong upon the labor move
ment. While they succeeded for a
time in denying us the use Of plat
forms from which to talk to the
masses under their influence, we
eventually achieved the confidence of
many of their own members by prov
ing to them in action that we were
the most determined fighters in the
ranks of labor.
The more intelligent leaders among
the socialists recognize this trend and
no longer refrain from entering into
united fronts with our party in many
of the movements we initiate. But
| the Orchards" of the Oneal type still
harp on the old string, still repeat the
ancient hoaxes that even they can
no longer believe-if they ever did
| believe them.
Then when, in addition to bringing
the members and sympathizers of the
socialist party closer to us, we write
and publish history in the light of
Marxism that is, at least to Oneal,
adding insult to injury. 1t is the un-
pardonable sin. Especially is this so
since a Communist Interpretation of
American history exposes by com
parison, the shallowness of OneaPs
claim to be the profound historian of
the American working class.
NEARSHALLING all his arsenal of
AVI reviling epithets Mr.. Oneal tells
his readers that my articles appearing
in the Workers Monthly on the demo-
cratic party are purely asinine.
He prefaces this scholarly observa-
ton with the ludicrous declaration
that the Communist movement has ex-
hibited marked decline in the past
six months, especially since its anus
ing transformation on a shop and
street nucleus basis" This is obvious
ly intended to create the notion that
we are declining in the hope that
some of the remaining members of his
party will be frightened away from
us and is a belated echo of the dire
prophecies, none of which material
lied, of the opportunist elements in
our own ranks that were excluded
from our party on the very threshold
of the transition from the old branch
organization, a heritage of the impo-
tent socialist party, to the shop nuclei
form.
From the mawkish repetition Of the
social-democratic sneers at the form
of organization proved by worldwide
experience to be correct for revolu-
tionary practice, Oneal proceeds to his
familiar buffonery and tries to discuss
history.
TINE eminent historian is particular
ly incensed at my estimation of
President Jackson as the political
spokesman of the powerful slave hold
ers Of the South. He properly
squelches me Cat least to his own sat.
isfaction) for having the audacity to
write American history that conflicts
with his laborious efforts by indig-
nantly asking:
"Why did the small slave holders
of the South support jackson and
also oppose the powerful slave hold
ers2 Why did the small farmers of
the new states in the West support
Jackson II the latter was the tool
Of the great planters? Moreover,
why we're the great majority Of the
workers in the northern cities Jack
sonians II jackson represented these
slave owners?"
1t is almost inconceivable that one
who processes a modicum Of MARKHAM
understanding could be guilty of such
utter rot, but 1t may be found on page
six, column three, in The New Leader
of Saturday, March q, 1926.
The answer to such questions are
very simple for a Marxist. Jackson
was supported by these elements, sim
ply because, my dear Mr.. oneal, the
prevailing ideas Of any given epoch
are the Ideas Of the ruling class. That
is Marks observation. so IL Won have