The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1931-05-14

More Psychology
By JORGE

N1OIS Sy AALOIOSg
Comrade D l. writes in friendly dispute, about
our Spark, Think It over" in our column on
May 8. She thinks we under estimate or ian
alyze too little" the psychology of the American
worker In fact, she says
There is nothing mysterious about American
psychology but for you to wave it aside Is
little mystifying We do not deny the Com
munist line when we proceed to Americanize
the Party, and it was to that end, we believe
that the readers comments were made.
Further, we do not under estimate the third
period but may it not be that we do not get
better results out of this period because we do
not in practice sufficiently Americanize the
Party because we do not understand the sources
of 'Anericanism?' To say that capitalism
(Which in principle is the same the world over
is imposed and reacted to in the same manner
rhythm, impact in every country, is not to be
Communist creator. The organizer must I'M
derstand the implications briefly suggested in
your correspondents letter, if the Communist
lever is to be more effective on large scala
And so will the Party come to the workers an
much as the workers will come to the Party"
Firstly, Comrade D. L. overlooked something
in our Spark. We did not wave aside" anything
important. We said, and we repeat
I'VE do not mean to question The value Of
studying the psychology Of the masses. j..
But there is altogether too much nonsense
about the special and mysterious mentality
of American workers.
Now for something more Comrade D. L, re-
minds us, correctly, of the need to Americanize
the Party obviously not from chauvinistic view
point, but from an objective desire better to at
tract the American workers. But she overlooks
that, at the same time, we are to proletarianize
the Party leadership
Why is that? Because the proetarian will
not have to spend any time psycho-analyzing
the American workers. He or she will be one
of them, bone of their bone and flesh of their
flesh. And we sort of shy away from anybody
who talks about the rhythm" and impact" and
other supposed complications of something that
is simple.
1t smacks of an external, social-worker, petty
bourgeois condescension toward the workers that
is not in the makeup of a Communist except
as remnant of a conception imposed upon him
by bourgeois training
To explain further we find about what needs
to be said in THE Party Organizer for March,
"Above all we now need organizers closely con-
nected with the masses devotedly giving them
selves to the cause of the revolutionary organ
1zation of the masses not reckoning with days
and hours of holidays and with questions of
personal comfort and well-being"
Leaders with petty-bourgeois limitations can
not qualify on that. But we come to the meat
of the argument in a quotation cited lin the
article mentioned) from a resolution on the
trade unions, written by Lenin at the 18th con-
gress of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union
1T is essential to have a system of recruit
ing responsible comrades from those Commu
nistS who live the workers life know IL in
side out, know how to define without making
mistakes in relation to any question. at anv
moment, the mood of the masses their rea:
desires, the demands of the masses, who know
how to determine, without any tints of fsSe
idealism, the level of their consciousness ami
the strength of the influence of this or that
prejudice or survival of former times. who
know how to win for themselves unlimited
confidence of the masses by comradeIy reIa
tions with them, by taking pains to satisfy
their needs"
Comrade Lenin, as will be SEEN fully appre-
ciated the need to know the mood of TN
masses their consciousness "preiudices" and
so on. And Lenin correctly estimated that to
know that, it was necessary-not to pore over
BOOKS OF psychology-but to live the workers,
lie, know it inside out" Do that and vou'l
not find study of rhythm" and "imnactn
necessary part of the curriculum in the Ma
uonal Training School In fact it isn't there
now and indeed it sounds Brookwoodish or
Brookwooden, doesn't it?