The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-07-27
Bv A. HAMILTON.

munism," $50 long as the question
was land so long as the question still
is) one of gaining the vanguard Of
the proletariat for Communism, just
SO long and so far will propaganda
take the first place"
Certainly it cannot be correctly said
that more than small percentage the
vanguard of the proletariat" has yet
been gained for Communism in the
United States; consequently propa-
ganda must occupy a position of prim-
airy Importance in Communist ac-
tivity in this country.
1t is perfectly true that Commun-
list Party is NOT MERELY pro-
paganda society; it must take an
active part in the class struggle as it
proceeds from day to day. But this
does not mean that propaganda is to
be relegated to the rear or disre-
garded altogether. We believe that
one of the most serious defects of the
Workers Party is just in respect to
its propaganda work, consisting in err
roneous ideas in reference to this
question, and failure to conduct the
work with the proper effectiveness.
What Is Propaganda?
In whats to Be Done?" Lenin re-
ferred to Plekhanov's definition "The
propaganda teaches large number
of ideas to a single person or a very
small number of persons; the agita-
tor teaches single or very small
number of ideas, but to mass of
people" Lenin comments on this de-
finition as follows:
"If the propaganda deals, for ex-
ample, with unemployment, he must
explain the nature of crises, to show
their inevitabiilty in present-day So
ciety, to prove the necessity for the
transformation of this society into the
socialist society, in word to supply
a great many ideas, so great a num-
Der of ideas that they could not be
Immediately assimiliated except by a
few people. Treating the same ques-
ton, the agitator on the contrary,
the best-known to his hearers; for ex-
ample, "a family without work, dead
of hunger; the increase of beggary,
etc. And taking advantage of this
fact known by all, he seeks to give
the mass a SINGLE IDEA, that of
the contrast between the increase of
riches and the increase of poverty;
he attempts to STIR UP discomfort
and indignation against this crying
injustice; and leaves to the propa-
gandist the task of giving a complete
explanation of this contrast. For this
reason, the propaganda works chiefly
by writing, the agitator chiefly by
speeches. For a propaganda, one
does not demand the same qualities
as for an agitator. Kautsky and La
fargue, for example, were propogan-
dists; Bebel and Guesde, agitators."
Propaganda and Agitation.
To fail to recognize the sharp dis
tinction between these two forms of
work is serious but common error.
One variety of mistake is to lump to-
gether all efforts to disseminate Com
munist ideas, either giving the whole
thing a strongly propaganda char
acter Capable of being assimiliated
only by a few or a strongly agita-
tional character (intended to reach
the masses Unfortunately; excess
sively simple; too much avoidance of
general ideas and revolutionary con-
clusions).
Another variety of error is to set
up an artificial division between pro-
paganda and activity" between what
we try to teach the workers and what
we try to get them to do. This was
one of the Economist" errors exposed
by Lenin, who showed that the OBJ
jective in all forms of revolutionary
work is ACTION by the masses. Len
in wrote. "To set up in addition a
third activity lie, besides agitation
and propaganda. H. consisting in
calling the masses to certain concrete
action, is an absurdity, for the CALI,
as an act in itself, either completes
naturally and inevitably the theore-
teal treatise, the propaganda PAM
phlet, the agitational discourse, or
else represents function purely exc
cutive." But the Economists" called
propaganda" the work of spreading
ideas, and agitation" the work of
calling the masses to certain con-
crete actions"
This erroneous Economist" view
not only confused the relationship be-
tween the dissemination Of ideas and
the work of rousing the masses into
activity (Which are but parts of the
~ ].