The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-04-24
How English Critics React to Trotzky's
New Book, "Whither England"

siders that the issue Of the book
proves the existence of liberty in Eng
land: "the battle for freedom is not
yet lost" altho the Communist trial
was "a nightmare" which raised grave
doubts in Brailsfords mind whether
Trotsky might not be right. However,
he rallies with the rest to the sanctity
Of British institutions. Revolutionary
ideas have no relation to England;
they are purely Russian" The book
is "a revelation of the Russian mind"
1t will not convert many to the Rus
sian standpoint" A Russian cannot
understand "our older civilization. ="
"The respect for the majority has
been inculcated in generations Of
Englishmen. What can a Russian
know of that?" Trotsky does not I'M
derstand the free" and democratic"
character Of religion in England And
so forth. This from the principal
theoretical exponent OF the I. L. P. in
England, who is capable in his writ
ings of dabbling with "Marxism" and
even calling himself "Marxist."
Russell begins with admissions of
almost all the points the remainder
dispute. "On the politics of the Brit
ish Labor Movement Trotsky is re
markedly we'll informed" Russell
agrees" with Trotsky on the question
of the monarchy, on religion, on the
Imperialism Of the Labor Party, on
the lack of coherent theoretical
outlook, on the intellectual and social
subservience of the leaders to the
bourgeoisie. Nor does he even dis
pute the inevitability Of civil war to
over come the bourgeoisie. But he
discovers a practical" reason to
avoid, as British citizen, any revolu-
tionary conclusion to these revolu-
tionary principles to which, as phil
osopher, he gives his assent.
Nothing can be done - because
Britain is dependent on America. at
is impossible for us to advance at a
pace which America VIII y
Enlarging and developing this liberat-
ing conception, he discovers that
here is the true explanation of the
"Paciism" of the British Labor Move
ment. Unfortunately for the truth of
this explanation, the "Pacifsm" exist
ed in the British labor movement be-
fore there was any question of a
Great War" or dependence on Amer
lea.
This does not present Russell from
coming to the conclusion identical
with the opinion of Mr. Baldwin, that
Trotsky advocates revolution in Brit
ain for patriotic" reasons, because
it would be advantageous to Rus
sia." ''The fact is" declares Ber-
trand Russell that Trotsky hates
Britain and British Imperialism, not
without good reason, and therefore is
not to be trusted when he gives ad-
vice."
Finally Lansbury has issued a reply
which is pitiful self-picture. He ad-
mits that the book is theoretically
oOuhNS Jul no ACSlS pei oOndlly at
tackled and wishes to answer back.
Impelled to answer, not only on be-
half of himself and his colleagues,
but of the whole outraged British ma
ton, he sings the glory of the British
national mission with simple fervor:
Britain is the one country in the
world where the opportunity of work
ers' control of every department Of
life is more possible Of achievement
than anywhere else.
"Our working class is learning the
great art of administration
thing which the Russian workers are
only beginning to learn" (sic).
"The British people have the finest
opportunity ever given to nation to
lead the world. still believe we shall
do It,"
And so forth. But what of the
struggle for power which the British
s.rI~< A -