The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-02-06
THE RADICALS

dressing I'D a corpse like the latest fashion
plate and propping it up in a chair. They say
that not even the most astute and prolonged
liberal hocus-pocus can put the slightest
breath Of life into it.
This all may be true. Certainly, the radicals
ought to be encouraged to keep up their
assaults upon us liberals in order that we may
be compelled constantly to re-examine our
facts and premises
At the same time it is not unfair to call
attention TO the conspicuous reluctance Of the
radicals to admit that there can possibly be
any mote in their own eyes while they pro-
coed with such great gusto in snatching the
beams from liberal eyes.
This radical defect has been noted especially
of late in the articles and reported speeches
Of the brilliant young English radical. John
strachey Mr.. Strachey has written what is
by all odds the most persuasive defense Of
Communism and has duly warned us against
the menace Of Fascism. No informed or fair
minded person can deny his high ability.
Yet in an article attacking the desirabilty
of third or radical party in the United
States which is contributed to The American
Mercury, he well illustrates the notable lack
of logic in the radical contention that no sane
person can stop anywhere between j. P. Nor
gan and Lenin.
Mr.. Strachey reviews the history Of the
British Labor party in order to discredit in adj
vance the radical Farmer-Labor party which
John Dewey and others hope to bring into be-
ing in the United States. He shows how the
Labor party, especially after 1900, came under
the control of men like Sidney Webb and
Ramsay Macdonald, who believed in gradual
reform rather than revolution
Mr.. Strachey holds that the collapse of the
British Labor party was due to the fact that
it succumbed to Sidney Webb's intriguing doc
trine of "the inevitability of gradualneSs." Not
being united by any common devotion to rev.
olution, the British laborites were paralyzed by
sectarianism, and fought among themselves.
An this, Mr. Strachey believes, should be
warning to American progressives: "IS it not
possible for the American masses to leap over
a whole historical phase, the phase of that
nauseating thing social-democratic reformism
and to pass direct from the domination of cap
italist ideas to the clear-sighted revolutionary
struggle for Communism"
1t is in this this characteristic radical as
sumption that all is bound to fail under lib
eralism and that all must be well under rad
icalism which exhibits a singular lapse of
logic and gross carelessnesS about the facts.
Let us look a little realistically into this
very history of the British Labor party Mr.
Strachey admits that it grew with astonishing
rapidity down to 1929. Its nonrevolutionary
character could not have been serious handi-
cap down to this time. Suppose that it had
been revolutionary from the beginning. Would
it have reached its contemporary proportions
by the present time? Certainly not, if we can
Judge from this outcome of the general strike
of 1926, though this was scarcely revolutionary
enough to provoke the most determined tactics
of the reactionarieS.
Nor can We assume that its espousal of
gradualnesS was the main cause of the collapse
of the Labor government of 1884, General
world conditons-especially the last great de-
fensive spasm of capitalism in the effort to
overcome depression--were adverse to, labor.
Moreover. the old forces were too strong in
Britain to be overthrown at the time.
If British labor had been thoroughly revo-
lutionary in 1881. there is every probability
that the reaction would have been even more
thorough and oppressive and the outlook for
Britain labor even darker. Take Italy, for
example. Here the revolutionary labor move
ment was strongly developed after the war.
The answer was a MuSsolini instead of a STAN
ley Baldwin
Even more product of wishful thinking is
the assumption that if labor abandoned itself
Fundamentally to revolution, it would come
to see its own interests and cease all Sec
tarianism-that the diversified groups who
now follow company unions, the American
Federation of Labor, the radical textile and
mine unions, the I. w. w. and the like, would
then all see eye to eye and chant the same
hymn of hate.
For the answer to this, we might have a
look at the feud between Stain and Trotsky
and other examples of revolutionary sectarian-
ism. Or, behold the bitter struggles between
American revolutionary groups led by Foster,
Lovestone, Weisbord and others. Foster hates
Lovestone even more than he does William
Green.
There is something to be said for revolu-
ton and Communism. But it is certainly too
much to imagine that they would at once
inject into our masses logic and clarity of
thought bring unity out of confusion and as
sure certain and speedy victory. Least of all,
would we expect such results in the United
States where we do not have even a good
healthy rash to say nothing of revolutionary
fervor.