The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-10-16
Letters from
Our Readers
ON CRITICISM OF S. P. LEADERS
Ames, Iowa.

ON CRITICISM OF S. P. LEADERS
An1es, Iowa.
Con1rade Editor:
Enclosed find 81 for three more
subscriptions to the Daily Worker.
am college student at Iowa State.
l assisted Comrade Mead OF Des
Moines in the formation Of an I'm
employed Council in Ames. There
are about 80 paid members and they
are very active.
am not a member OF the Com
munist Party and do not see my way
clear to become one. However, / be-
lieve in the class struggle, am against
imperialist war, believe in complete
socialism, recognize the futility of
/ liberalism and democracy as instru-
| inents Of social chance at present,
and believe that victory for socialism
can only be won through revolution.
Consequently, help the Communists
whenever possible and will be with
them in the final struggle.
However. I should probably be
kicked out of the party should I
Join. ] do not believe that the mis-
leaders Of the liberal, refornist and
social democratic parties are deliber-
ate niisleaders. 1 believe that most
! Of them are honestly mistaken.
Therefore I cannot heap upon them
hat torrent Of personal abuse con-
/ stantly coming from Communists.
Furtherfore. believe that the Com
munists could find it possible to work
with the Socialists and liberals much
better than they now do.
Sincerely yours,
Tie Communist Party has never
,4ldulscd in personal abuses. If you
will examine the statements which
the Communist Party makes about
leaders of the Socialist Party and
other parties, you will see that it is
the policies and teachings of these
people which the G. P. attacks and
never the persons themselves. For
example, the G. P. for many years
attacked Macdonald as a social
patriot who was betraying the in
terests of the working class. This
was called SANDER and personal
abuse" by the English Socialists, but
have not MacDonald's actions borne
out the truth Of the G. P. statements?
In this country, the Communist
Party denounces Norman Thomas,
not as person, but because he
teaches the workers that it is "in-
advisable to strike now. 1t attacks
him, not as a person, but because he
is opposed to fighting against the
attacks Of the Roosevelt government
and for a dictatorship of the work
ing class.
You may ask why is this persistent
attack of the policy of the S. P.
necessary. 1t must be obvious that
an essential part of the fight for the
overthrow Of capitalism is the fight
against those who are seeking to
cripple this fight.
The Communist Party has always,
and is now, willing to enter into
united front struggles with workers
of all political convictions. AS a
matter OF fact, it is the c. p. alone
which strives for such a united front.
And it is the S. P. leaders who
have always refused TO enter into a
united front with the Communists on
the grounds that the Communists
Islander" them. In this way, the
s. P. leaders backed out of the
Mooney united front conference. In
the same way, they refused to CO.
operate with all the various political
elements who were united in the
resent historic anti-war Congress in
New York City.
The Communist Party, like any
honest political party, always has and
always will, subject it opponents to
thorough political criticism. 1t is a
right which 1t exercises and which
it expects other political parties to
exercise. But it is fear of criticism,
particularly, Communist criticism,
that has resulted in the Socialist
leaders cry Of personal abuse and
SANDER.
We are sure that If you will follow
the Daily Worker carefully, you will
never find in it personal abuse, only
revolutionary Marxist political cri-
ticism. Editor.