The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-01-20
Liberal Viewpoint
by DIR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

TINE amazing aggresslveness of President
u Roosevelt and the sweeping character OF his
National Industrial Recovery Act have lesSened
the attention being given to the prospect for
revolutionary change in the United States.
Yet there is plenty of talk about it among
those who take no stock in the Roosevelt poll
cies and believe that nothing short of an aboh-
ton of capitalism and the national state can
bring about any lasting benefits Dr. Samuel B.
SchmalhauSen has just edited a book on Re
covery Through Revolution" (Covici Friede), and
Sidney Reeve has elucidated 1.-THE Natural Laws
of Social CONFUSION" Dutton). Numerous pam
phlets and articles have appeared on the subject
wholly outside the revolutionary press.
have made it abundantly evident that am
willing to give the new deal the benefit of reas-
enable doubt and wait for its results. I believe
it has fighting chance. But it is well at least
to contemplate what would be the aftermath OF
it's failure. VIII revolution follow and, if so,
what will be its character? What do some of
the wise men who have written on revolution in
the last few months have to say about such
matters?
V. F. Calverton in John Day pamphlet, For
Revolution" and in chapter in the Schmal-
hansen volume lays much stress on the long and
honorable revolutionary tradition in the United
States. The same point is stressed by Albert j.
Mock in an article IF We Must Have Revolu-
ton" in the American Mercury. The impression
is given that Americans are a revolutionary
people and that the Boston Tea Party and
Shays Rebellion may be repeated almost any
day.
TMBERT SELDES in another John Day
VI pamphlet, Against Revolution" bitterly
attacks the revolutionary program, holding that
revolution is simply an explosion and an abdi-
cation of thought. 1t would bring ten years of
chaos to the United States. 1t would have to be
followed by social planning which we can begin
now without revolution.
Mr.. Calverton sails into Seldes' thesis with
great guSto and claims that only a revolution
can save us from the profit system, the class
struggle and economic decay. One point, at
least, which Mr.. Calverton makes is sound
and worth noting. This is that we can draw no
direct analogieS from the experience OF Russia.
If there were a general will for revolution in
the United States it could be carried through
quickly with little disorder and no prolonged
chaos. 1t could reach in six months a situation
which Russia, even with good fortune, can not
attain before 1850. Russia will have to work
for two more decades to secure the material
equipment which we now possess and could be
taken over at once by revolutionists.
OUR authorities are at variance as to the
" prospect of revolution. Calverton remains
loyal to the old dogmas that revolution is in
evitable and that mass misery and hatred will
suffice to produce it. Most OF the other writer's
doubt this, and H. N. BailSford, in an article on
/
Tomorrow, lays special stress upon the fact that
the prolonged sufferings of 100000 unemployed
in the western world today have not produced
even revolutionary rumblings In this position
he is Joined heartily by Mr. Soule in an article
in Harper's Magazine. The latter believes that
revolution first starts in the discomfort and dis
illusionment of the intellectual classes and he
holds that we already may be entering the revo-
lutionary epoch Our intellectuals certainly are
disturbed.
Mr.. Mock finds fault with the past revolu-
tionary leaders and would entrust the coming
American revolution to the hfty-nine rulers OF
America named by Mr.. Gerard, plus a philo-
sopher, say John Dewey, to give them perSpec-
tive MI Brailsford and Walter Polakov in the
SchmalhauSen volume put their money on the
scientists and technicianS. Calverton expects the
masses to do the fighting, but hopes that the
highbrow will then step in and direct the course
of events
| All of this makes interesting reading, but
personally I believe that revolution, old style
| the bloody revolution of hiStory-is as outmoded
as the stage coaeh Revolutionaries talk mucL
about technology, but they seem to have over
looked the relation of particular type OF tech
nology to revolutionary measures. I refer to she
technology Of dealing out death. Embattleo
farmers with pitchforks-even enlbattled in
dustrialists who had raided armory-would
have precious little chance against machine
guns, air bombers, tanks. laughing gas, poison
gas and other modern engines of destruction
| Revolution is 'out, but if the new deal fails
we may have a complete collapse Of capitalism.
1t is for this reason that we need strong and
well integrated group of intelligent radicals.
They never will be able to overthrow the present
order by force. but they may prove very helpful
| in picking up the pieces. If one recoils at this
prospect, then let him help to avert the col
lapse