The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-04-28
Communists, Socialists and Hero Worship

dulge in myth-making, nor do we use
the language of the religionist or the
sentimentalist. On the contrary, we
depict his life and his contributions
to the revolution precisely as they
were. The reason we emphasize his
life is not because we conside- him
a Messiah or because he was in
fallible, but we declare, without fear
of successful contradiction, that Com
rade Ruthenberg was the personifica-
ton of the highest development of the
revolutionary movement in this coun-
try. To familiarize the working
masses with the life and struggles
and sacrifices Of Ruthenberg is to
dramatize for them the last two de-
cades of labor history in this coun-
try. He represented the best in the
pre-war days and the best in the
days of black reaction after the war.
We want the workers of America
to realize that this is the beginning
Of new era; that Ruthenberg was
the outstanding figure in the new
leadership of labor of this era, the
era of the breakdown of capitalism
and the proletarian revolution. We
want them to understand the differ
ence between the era of DeLeon,
Powderly, Gompers and Debs-other
leaders who have passed within the
past few years-and the present
time.
In this campaign there is no re-
religious mummery, no sickening
tales of sentimental dwelling, no
messianic dithyrambics such as the
socialist party bestows upon Debs.
And indeed one suffers from a most
pathetic form of political myopia who
cannot perceive the difference be-
tween the socialist party hero wor-
ship of Debs and the Ruthenberg
campaign of the Workers (Com-
munist) Party.
NOR is it un-Marxisme to recognize
~ the fact that individuals in their
own lives and achievements frequently
personify definite class or class
tendency. 1t is only the most absurdly
mechanical perverters of Marx who
belittle the role of individuals in max
ing history. 1t is a part and parcel
of that same bourgeois delusion that
frequently raises its head and clamor-
ously criticises Communist writers and
speakers for attacking individuals"
instead of talking theory and "eco-
nomics." Men, it is true are puppets
of history, products of their environ
ment, but they also, as Marx OBJ
served, make history, and revolution
lists are charged not only with I'M
ravelling the mysteries of the past,
but of utilizing that understanding to
make history better than it was ever
made before. Can anyone read that
magnificent product of historical
materialism "The Eighteenth Brum-
aire of Louis Bonaparte" penned by
Marx, in which he erected a monu-
ment of shame to that impostor, and
not perceive how one individual can
personify class in society? Did
Marx excoriate Palmertson in his
Eastern Question" because he be-
lieved in the great man theory? Was
it mere rhetoric when he denounced
Theirs in his "Civil War in France"
as the most consummate personifica-
ton of the corruption of the class he
served?
Likewise, would our indignant
reader condemn Frederick Engels for
his estimation of Marx as the great
est genius of the past century? Was
Lenin indulging in vapid sentimental
ism when, in 1917, he praised Karl
Liebknecht as the foremost leader of
the working class in Europe and the
embodiment of the struggle against
imperialist war? The list could be
indefinitely continued to prove that
all MARKHAM revolutionary leaders
have fully recognized the dialectical
connection between the individual and
the historical movement.
TO refrain from depicting the role
of the individual and to neglect to
popularize the work of an individual
who embodied as did Ruthenberg the
revolutionary movement in the United
States would be not only inexcusable
stupidity, but crime against the
international Communist movement.
To criticise us for popularizing the
life and work of Ruthenberg in order
that masses of workers may come to
know of our party and its history is
anti-Marxism. 1t is part and parcel
of that didactic, empty, spurious
Marxism that abjures all reference
to individuals and that dwells only in