Mary Bell Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. IX No. 11, 12 March 1945, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
To the Editor:
Your story in the last issue of Labor Action on George Morris’ vicious lies in his new pamphlet The Trotskyist Fifth Column in the Labor Movement, was a bit confusing because it was really incomplete.
Several of Morris’ lies were answered by merely saying that Morris lied. That’s true enough. A Stalinist hack of his standing is incapable of doing anything else. But I think that the readers of Labor Action deserve some more explanation so that thy really know how and precisely where and in what way he did so.
Add to the general confusion the fact that the Morris pamphlet condemned many non-Trotskyist union leaders that the CP disagrees with as Trotskyist. In answering it was merely pointed out that these leaders were not Trotskyists. It leaves the impression that Labor Action may also condemn the union militants. This I know is not so ... so why not a little more on the rot that Morris dug out of the sewers.
|
|
S.L. |
It is much easier, to lie than to tell the truth, especially when the whole structure of our own society is woven together with lies.
Lies about the war for “democracy”; lies about the guilt of, the whole German people for Hitlerism; lies about the world peace and security that will come out of this war; lies peddled freely in this country about the Japanese race of “half-men, half-apes”; lies about the inferiority of Negroes; lies about Jewish bankers being the beneficiaries of the war, etc.
A liar has no responsibility for checking facts. One who tells the truth does. Consequently his is the much more arduous job.
There are many ways of lying. One can use distorted facts, false logic, wrong conclusions from correct facts, half-truths, truths juxtaposed to lies, etc. The Communists, to whom no one can hold a candle in falsifying, use all these methods.
Here is an example of the typical Communist Party method:
It is a fact known to every high school student that the Communist Party represents the interests of Stalinist Russia. The Workers Party says: The Communist Party subordinates the interests of the working-class to the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Hearst press writes that the Communists are “Russia Firsters.” Therefore, say the Communists, the Hearst press and Labor Action are identical. It’s so easy!
As you point out in your letter, Morris identifies labor leaders who have not come under the thumb of the Communists, who divide their support of the war with the interests of the workers, as Trotskyists.
Under this interdict come Walter Reuther of the UAW (a “subversive” according to Morris’ lights!), David Dubinsky of the ILGWU and Samuel Wolchok of the United Retail and Wholesale Workers (who “give the Trotskyites shelter and support, using them chiefly as tools for Red-baiting and anti-Sovieteer purposes”).
Briggs Local 212 in Detroit is considered by the Communists under Trotskyist leadership because it is a militant local whose members have struck and whose delegates backed the move to rescind the no-strike pledge at the UAW convention.
De Lorenzo, of Local 365, militant union president who fought hard in guarding the interests of his membership, becomes a “Trotskyite” too.
If my article contained the impression that because such leaders are not Trotskyists, why, then, we do not support them, that is incorrect. Space did not permit a full explanation and exposure of all the lies in which Morris’ pamphlet abounds.
Labor Action and the Workers Party support these leaders WHEN, AS and IF they defend the interests of the workers. We think we would do a better, more thorough and consistent job were we in their places. We condemn them insofar as they all, to one degree or another, support the imperialist war or the pro-employer no-strike pledge.
These aforementioned leaders, like John L. Lewis and many others, are not under the Stalinist hypnosis, as are Murray, Hillman, Thomas and others who are holding hands with the Russian totalitarian leaders in the World Labor Conference. Therefore, you see, they’re anti-Soviet, pro-Hitler and Trotskyite! It’s so very, very easy.
But for the smart, class-conscious workers, who see the Communists acting as strike-breakers in the Montgomery Ward fight, who know that their spokesman, Harry Bridges, proposed a permanent no-strike pledge, who know that Earl Browder now defends capitalism and postpones socialism to the millennium – it’s not so difficult to nail the lies.
According to the Daily Worker (Wrecker), the pamphlet by George Morris, its anti-labor expert, is being received very enthusiastically in the unions. Such a statement is obviously suspect, and when we read the whole story our suspicions were completely verified.
Minnesota Labor, organ of the Minnesota CIO, according to the Daily Worker, published a review of the pamphlet by William Mauseth, lousiness agent of the Moline, Ill., local of the United Electrical Workers. There is the give-away. The Communist-Stalinists control the Minnesota CIO. They also control the national organization of the UE. William Mauseth is an old-time member of the Communist Party. So there is really nothing strange about the Communists promoting their own pamphlet in the unions which they control. They need such propaganda to bolster their anti-labor, scabbing policy.
Nor is it strange that Daniel Tobin, president of the Teamsters International, is helping the Stalinists in promotion of this pamphlet. Tobin is a reactionary labor leader and the only top-flight labor leader who defends the Little Steel formula (see editorial on page 3). Two groups of reactionaries have merely clasped hands! They would look much better outside the labor movement. The labor movement Would certainly be a healthier place without them.
Mary Bell Archive | Trotskyist Writers’ Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 9 April 2016