The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1928-12-22
Barbusse's New Journal Monde

backbone of MARKHAM revolutionary
philosophy. The dangerous develop
ment of MONDE is towards united
literary front with the best of bour-
geois writers. There is. absolutely
no need for that, and I think it is a
mistake, for our own field is much
too big, our three tasks are great,
and the leadership of such men as
Roman ROLAND, Upton Sinclair, De
Unamuno, Leon Werth and Tagore
are to be combatted strongly if we
are to have our own revolutionary
literature. Instead MONDE ac-
cepts writers as collaborators and
even points commencing finger at
them.
What would best indicate this
trend of MONDE towards the lib
eral bourgeois writer's and it's illu-
sion that a united front with them
can be achieved is the inquest it is
now carrying on to ascertain if
proletarian literature is possible and
if so what is it's role. Its inquest
posts two questions:
1. Do you believe that artistic
and literary production is a purely
individual phenomena Do you
think that it should or ought to be
the reflection of the main currents
which determine the economic and
social evolution of humanity?
2. Do you believe in the existence
of an art and literature which ,ex-
presses the aspirations of the work
ing class? Who do you think are
it's principal representatives?
Aside from the vague and mis-
leading formulation of the second
part of the first question-should
it not have been, rather, the economic
factors which determine social evolu-
ton and it's main currents ?-the
| very posting of these questions is
an admission of uncertainty. 1t may
be answered that the immediate
purpose for these questions was tc
arouse controversy between bour-
geois and proletarian critics anc
thus lead to the further Qualification
of the proletarian view. 1t has
aroused controversies judging from
the numerous answers in Monde ano
has even broken out into the ever.
shopping Partisan bourgeois press
Even the ultra-conservative Temps
carried an animated answer by Pau
Souday.
By far the most inconsistent as.
pect of these questions is their bic
for united front with the bourgeois
intellectuals. Perhaps the Partisan
literary tradition delights in con-
troversy and loves such fights, but
to my mind to carry the controversy
to those who are known to be the
enemies of the working class ant
its theology and to open the pages
of Monde to these individuals is al
entirely wrong conception of the
function Monde should be intended
to serve. Jean Cocteau, that flip
pant, decadent parlor wit; Waldo
Frank, the decadent reviver of de
cadent romanticism searching clouds
castles in Spain and rose gardens
the extreme individualist, De Una
muno; Emile Vandervelde, traitor
to proletarian revolution, they ant
others like them answer these ques
tons in Monde. What can they
tell us about proletarian art ant
the aspirations of the working
class? Their views are separated
from ours by a whole society. L
the purpose Of the inquest is t.
clarity the purpose of Monde let the
proletarian writers and critics clar
] ify it and develop their views by
mutual exchange and mutual fight
against the very ones who have
been invited to write in Monde.
This united front tactic is the
greatest danger to Monde and tt
its expressed purposes. We can only
hope that it will make a SHARP
change in the direction it is travel
ing, drop some Of it's literary sailor
atmosphere and really devote itseli
to the execution Of the three mair
tasks Of a revolutionary proletariar
| journal.