The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-02-21

gets this task of his, reconciles himself with
the belief in god, and lets himself be led not
by the interests of the class struggle, but by
petty, miserable consderations--to cause pain
to no one, to drive away one, to brighten no
one-who guides himself by the wise rule"
"Live and let live" etc.
From this standpoint also must be deter
mined the special questions which bear on the
attitude of social democracy to religion. The
question is, for example, asked whether min
lister of religion can be member of the Social
Democratic Party, and this question is COM
monty answered, with any reserve, in the af
firmative, by reference to the experience of
the West European Social Democratic parties.
This experience, however, is not simple prod
uct of the application of Marxst doctrine to
the labor movement, but is consequence of
particular historical conditions in West Europe,
which are absent in Russia, so that an uncon-
ditional affirmative answer to this question is
here incorrect. One cannot say absolutely and
for all conditions that ministers of religion
cannot be members of the Social Democratic
Party, but neither can the opposite rule be
laid down. If the minister comes to us to
common political work. and fulfills his party
work with understanding, without bringing
himself into opposition to the party program,
then we can receive him in the ranks of social
democracy, since the opposition between the
spirit and fundamental principles of our pro-
gram and his religious convictions can only
concern him and remain his personal contradic-
ton; a political organization cannot examine
its members as to whether there is not con-
tradiction between their conceptions and pro-
gram of the Party. But an instance of this type
could naturally only be a rare exception even
in Western Europe, and in Russia it is still
more improbable. If minister should enter in
to social-democratic party and then wish to
take up his principal and almost his only work
an active religious propaganda in the party,
the party would undoubtedly have to expel
him. With regard to groups of workers who
have still retained Their belief in god, we must
not only admit them into the party, but should
energetically draw them in; we are absolutely
against the slightest injuring of their religious
feelings, but we win them in order to be trained
in the spirit of our program and not in order
OF take up an active fight against it. We al
low inside the party freedom of opinion, but
only within certain limits, which are deter
mined by the freedom of the formation Of
groups we are not obliged to 60 hand in hand
with those who actively propagate points Of
view which are rejected by the majority Of the
party.
Another example. Should one under all cir
cumstances condemn member Of the Social
Democratic Party for the declaration, $50
cialism is my religion" as one would for the
propagation of points Of view which CORE
spond to that declaration? Oh, no. "A devia-
ton from Marxism and therefore from Social
ism is very definitely here, but the meaning
of this deviation, its specific gravity, as it
were, can vary in different situations It is
one thing when an agitator or someone coming
before the masses speaks in this way, in order
to be better understood, to draw interest into
his subject-matter, to express his point Of
view more wildly in forms which are more ac-
cessible to the undeveoped mass;. it is quite
another thing when writer begins to propa-
gate some god-construction or "god-construct-
ing" socialism tfor example, in the spirit of
our Lunacharsky and his assoc;ates). Just
as in the first case censure would only be
captious cavilling or an uncahed-for limitation
of the freedom Of the agitator, the freedom
of the teachers methods Of work, so in the
second case censure by the party is necessary
and obligatory. The maxim, Socialism is my
religion" is for the one a form of transition
from religion to Socialism, but for the other
from Socialism to religion.
(To be Continued.)