Chapter XVI: The Conspiracy Against Our Country (2)

The reappearance of Morris Hillquit in the Assembly case at Albany, on February 17, 1920, and his appearance on the witness-stand as "an expert on Socialism," was a similar attempt to repair the breaches with camouflage. It was his part with an amused smile to show that "industrial organization," "industrial action," "mass action" and "general strikes" really mean nothing in the Socialist Party's manifestoes, platforms and programs, and that his party's affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International was a mere meaningless, friendly gesture. But these party utterances and acts meant all and even more than they said to the party's rank and file and confederates.

It was brought out in the testimony at Albany on February 10, 1920, that the minority report of the Emergency Convention, decreeing affiliation with the Moscow International, had been adopted by a referendum vote of the party's rank and file, 3,495 votes for to 1,449 against. The wording of this report, here given in part from Trachtenberg's 1919-20 Labor Year Book, page 411, is another of those brilliant attempts at camouflage for which the "Yellow" Socialists are famous:

"Any International, to be effective in this crisis, must contain
only those elements who take their stand unreservedly upon the
basis of the class struggle, and their adherence to this principle
is not mere lip loyalty....

"The Socialist Party of the United States, in principle and in its
past history, has always stood with those elements of other
countries that remained true to their principles. The manifestoes
adopted in national convention at St. Louis (1917) and Chicago
(1919), as well as Referendum 'D,' 1919, unequivocally affirm this
stand.[K] These parties, the majority parties of Russia, Italy,
Switzerland, Norway, Bulgaria and Greece, and growing minorities in
every land, are uniting on the basis of the preliminary
convocation, at Moscow, of the Third International. As in the past,
so in this extreme crisis, we must take our stand with them.

"The Socialist Party of the United States, therefore, declares
itself in support of the Third (Moscow) International, not so much
because it supports the 'Moscow' programs and methods, but because:

"(a) 'Moscow' is doing something which is already challenging world
imperialism.

"(b) 'Moscow' is threatened by the combined capitalist forces of
the world simply because it is proletarian.

"(c) Under these circumstances, whatever we may have to say to
'Moscow' afterwards, it is the duty of Socialists to stand by it
now because its fall will mean the fall of Socialist republics in
Europe, and also the disappearance of Socialist hopes for many
years to come."

If Moscow's "programs and methods" are only the minor reason for supporting Moscow, what is the major reason for this "support?" What is the Third (Moscow) International "doing" which "is really challenging" the "world," arraying the "forces of the world" against it and thus making its own "fall" a serious possibility? We examine (see Chapters III and IV and the present chapter) the Third (Moscow) International's call to the March, 1919, Conference and the manifesto sent out from it, and we see what it has done in challenge of the rest of the world. It has declared war against the rest of the world and its existing governments, the "Entente Powers," "The White Terror of the bourgeoisie," as it calls them in the "Manifesto of the Moscow International" published in the "New York Call" of July 24, 1919, from which we here quote; and against these "Entente Powers," "The White Terror," the manifesto continues, "Against this the proletariat must defend itself--defend itself at all costs! The Communist International calls the whole world-proletariat to this, the final struggle! Down with the imperialist conspiracy of capital! Long live the International Republic of Proletarian Soviet!" (Ibid.)

Thus complete identification with this proletarian declaration of war against the "Entente Powers" was the major aim of the Socialist Party of the United States in voting for affiliation with Moscow. This is the principal ground on which it "declares itself in support of the Third (Moscow) International" and proclaims it to be "the duty of Socialists to stand by it now." Just as Hillquit differed from the Left Wingers, now his "communist brethren," not "on vital questions of principles," but only "on methods and policy," opposing their "movement" "not because" it was "too radical" or "would lead us too far," but simply because its "specific form and direction, ... its program and tactics," would "spell disaster," so Hillquit's Party supported the Third (Moscow) International "not so much because" of its "programs and methods" as because what it was "doing," its war-declaration and marshaling of the world's proletarian forces against the "Entente Powers," was "really challenging world imperialism."

Is not one mind, one aim, one intent, one purpose and hatred consistently evident in all these utterances? And thus we understand the vehemence of the Chicago Manifesto of September 4, 1919, "largely based upon one suggested by Morris Hillquit," as the "Call," New York, of September 5, 1919, says. The following quotation from the Chicago Manifesto, as printed in the "New York Call" of September 5, 1919, and also in Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, pages 413-14, shows that the Socialist Party of America completely repudiates the so-called "Moderate" Socialists, and supports the Bolshevist and Communist violent revolutionists:

"The Socialist Party of the United States at its first national convention after the war, squarely takes its position with the uncompromising section of the international Socialist movement. We unreservedly reject the policy of those Socialists who supported their belligerent capitalist governments on the plea of 'national defense,' and who entered into demoralizing compacts for so-called civil peace with the exploiters of labor during the war and continued a political alliance with them after the war. We, the organized Socialists of America, pledge our support to the revolutionary workers of Russia in the maintenance of their Soviet Government, to the radical Socialists of Germany, Austria and Hungary in their efforts to establish working-class rule in their countries, and to those Socialist organizations in England, Italy and other countries who during the war, as after the war, have remained true to the principles of uncompromising international Socialism."

Just as the Moscow Manifesto cries out, "Long live the International Republic of Proletarian Soviet!" so does Hillquit's manifesto, adopted September 4, 1919, by the Socialist Party, "hold out to the world the ideal of a federation of free and equal Socialist nations." A common zeal for the violent overthrow of the world's existing non-Socialist governments, in order to set up a world-empire of Socialism, is the major feature of the Socialist Party's unity with the Moscow plotters and incendiaries.

But while Moscow's "programs and methods" are "not so much" the concern of the American Socialist Party as the "federation of ... Socialist nations," yet these Moscow "programs and methods" are themselves also distinctly adopted and enthusiastically followed by the American Socialists.

The Moscow Manifesto ("New York Call," July 24, 1919) lays down two great principles of action, one of _method_, the other of _means_. Here is the method: "The revolutionary epoch demands that the proletariat should employ such fighting methods as will concentrate its entire energy, viz., the method of mass action, and lead to its logical consequence--the direct collision with the capitalist state machine in an open combat. All other methods, e.g., revolutionary use of bourgeois parliamentarism, will in the revolution have only a subordinate value."

Here is the means: "A coalition is necessary with those elements of the revolutionary workers' movement who, though they did not previously belong to the Socialist Party, now, on the whole, take up the standpoint of the proletarian dictatorship in the form of the power of Soviets, e.g., _some of the sections among the Syndicalists_." (Ibid.)

The American "Syndicalists" are the I. W. W.'s, and their methods are those of "industrial action" by means of industrial unionism. In other words, they are seeking to organize "One Big Union" in order, as the "Preamble" to their Constitution asserts, to "take possession of the earth and the machinery of production." These are the methods and means recommended by the Moscow International to the rabid Socialists affiliated with it all over the world.

These methods and means, urged by the Moscow Manifesto, were evidently adopted in Hillquit's manifesto, which led, by the party's adoption of it, to the American Socialist Party's strong commitment of itself at Chicago to "strongly organize" on "industrial lines" the "bulk of the American workers" into "one powerful and harmonious class organization" ready for "industrial action." The preamble to the Constitution, also adopted at the Emergency Convention of 1919, according to Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 410, stresses the same thing:

"The Socialist Party seeks to organize the working-class for
independent _action_ on the political field, not merely for the
betterment of their conditions, _but also and above all with the
revolutionary aim_ of putting an end to exploitation and class
rule." And it adds: "To accomplish this aim, it is necessary that
the working-class be powerfully and solidly organized also on the
economic field _to struggle for the same revolutionary goal_."

Trachtenberg's 1919-1920 Year Book, page 409, tells us, too, that the party at its Emergency Convention "adopted a series of resolutions," including two described as follows:

"_Co-operatives._--Favoring the establishment of co-operatives and
recommending that literature be distributed on the subject."

"_Economic Organization._--Favoring industrial unionism and
establishing a labor department in the party for the preparation of
literature and more active work among the labor unions."

We know what the last-mentioned resolution means; and the meaning of the propaganda for "co-operatives" becomes plain when we read in Trachtenberg's same Year Book, page 393, that this co-operative movement has been defined as "The state within a state."

Indeed, these two resolutions, favoring propaganda for "co-operatives" and "industrial unionism," seem to be explained in the "Preamble to the Constitution of the Socialist Party," adopted at Chicago on September 6, 1919. A single sentence in this Preamble, which we quote from Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 410, tells us what the Socialist Party wants and the means by which it hopes to get it. Here is the sentence: "The workers must wrest the control of the government from the hands of the masters and use its powers in this upbuilding of the new social order, the Co-operative Commonwealth."

Naturally "co-operatives" are favored as a step toward the "Co-operative Commonwealth," which is what the Socialist dreamers want. But in order to set up this new state, the Socialists want "the workers" to do a big job for them, namely, to "wrest the control of" the present Government of the United States and get it out of the way. Thus "the workers" are the means, the tool, which the hair-brained Socialists hope to use, while the proposed method of using these "workers" is to make Socialists of them and line them up in one big "industrial union" ready for "industrial action" when the Socialists crack the whip. We do not think America's "workers" intend to burn their fingers in pulling Hillquit's chestnuts out of the fire; but the lazy drones, the Socialist "intellectuals," as the Hillquitites love to style themselves, certainly hope to ride into power on the back of American labor just as the Bolshevist "dictators," Lenine and Trotzky, rode into power and are still riding on the galled back of the labor slaves of Russia.

It appears, then, that the Socialist Party of America is not merely affiliated with Moscow's "programs and methods" by a referendum vote, but has adopted a similar program and method for its own "supreme task." The only difference is that the Bolsheviks have made their revolution, while the American Socialists are forging the weapon for theirs. Debs' motto is their motto: "I am law abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

Perceiving the peril of his party, Hillquit, on the witness stand in the Judiciary Committee's inquiry at Albany, sought in every way to belittle the significance of his and his party's Chicago Manifesto, the Moscow Manifesto, and the evident connection between the two, belittling, also, his party's affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International. How unscrupulous and hypocritical his testimony seems in the light of all the facts!

In his testimony at Albany on February 19, 1920, Hillquit acknowledged the Chicago Manifesto, adopted September 4, 1919, as his own child. "At least ninety per cent of it is my authorship," he proudly said. Having himself imprudently led his party to make open confession, by manifesto, of its plot "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of their present keeping and so completely into the hands of the Socialist Party that it would be able "to place" them "in the control of" a special class, did Hillquit feel that he would be justified on the witness stand in using any extreme of craft which might help to bury the plot out of sight again?

In spite of the fact that the Party Manifesto Hillquit wrote sounds astonishingly like the echo of the Moscow Manifesto, Hillquit, on February 19, 1920, swore that he had never read the Moscow Manifesto when he wrote his ninety per cent or more of the Chicago Manifesto. To this he held even when reminded by Mr. Conboy that all of the Moscow Manifesto but the preamble had appeared in the "New York Call" of July 24, 1919. And he still sought to convey the notion that the Moscow Manifesto had not made any particular impression upon the members of his party prior to the Emergency Convention of September, 1919, in spite of the letter read to him by Mr. Conboy, of which the following is an extract:

"SOCIALIST PARTY
"National Office
"Executive Secretary: Adolph Germer
"803 West Madison Street
"Chicago, Ill., 5/12/1919.

"Local Rochester, C. M. O'Brien,

"580 St. Paul St., Rochester, N. Y.:

"Dear Comrade.--I am pleased to announce the publication of two
vital documents in pamphlet form, namely, 'The Manifesto Communist
International,' issued 1919 by the Soviets of Russia at Moscow to
the toiling masses of the world. This is undoubtedly the greatest
declaration ever issued from any working class tribunal since the
Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels ... the second is 'The
Constitution World's First Socialist Republic....

[Signed] "Edwin Firth,

"Literature Dept."

But Hillquit, the great "expert on Socialism," missed reading this "vital" manifesto all the summer of 1919, when the Socialist papers were full of it; and yet, by some wild chance, himself composed a close echo of it!

The cowardly "Reds," as we have seen, want a violent revolution and constantly preach it to the discontented as boldly and openly as they dare. But they want America's workingmen to take all the risk and do all the work, and they go on with their frantic agitation in the hope that American labor will some day organize a great "general strike" and try to turn it into a revolution to overthrow the United States Government. Naturally, therefore, the Socialists get excited whenever any great labor strike is on, and they stand as tempters whispering the word "revolution" into the ears of the strikers. Sometimes they get their suggestion that the strike be turned into a revolution before the strikers' minds by a hypocritical pretense that they are afraid that what they so much long for is likely to happen. Debs, the Socialist Party's presidential standard-bearer, is a past master in this art of suggestion through a pretense of feeling concern, and during the steel strike of 1919 he even tried to "start something" of this kind from behind the bars of his jail. Thus in the form of an interview, sent as a "special to the 'New York Times,'" which published it September 24, 1919, he got off the following hypocritically inflammatory comment on the steel strike from his place in the Atlanta Federal Prison:

"'I fear that much violence will result from the strike. Then we
have the potentiality of other unions to consider, for many of
them, including the miners, who have a crisis coming within a short
time themselves, as well as the railroad men of the country, who
have already made demands--these workers and others may be drawn
into the great steel struggle before it is over, and while I do not
believe that a prearranged general strike will be called, yet I
fear the results of great excitement over possible killings like
those we read about in the papers of today, and it is possible that
in the heat of passion men may lay down their work and be swept
into a revolution with cyclonic fury.

"'Anything is possible as an outcome of the present situation,'
continued the prisoner, 'and should a general strike or revolution
occur it would be the outcome of too great pressure being brought
to bear upon the men who, in a state of unrest and industrial
uncertainty, have reached a highly inflammable condition that might
burst out spontaneously.'"

"Honest" Bill Haywood, one of the foremost Socialists of the time, admitted as far back as the early part of 1912, in a speech at Cooper Union, New York City, that the Socialists were conspirators against the United States Government.

The Socialist Party of America, ever since its birth, has been reviling and attacking the Government of the United States with a view to overthrowing and destroying it. Is it possible that such an organization is not engaged in a conspiracy against our country?

The American Socialists have been thoroughly unpatriotic. "To hell with the American flag!" "Down with the Stars and Stripes!" "I would spit upon your flag!" These are a few of their expressions of contempt. The United States uniform and the soldiers alike are scorned and ridiculed. The article in "The Call," "Rows and Rows and Rows of 'em march," which has been quoted in a previous chapter, shows the reader the real spirit and intention of Debs' gang, who have been so zealous in stirring up strikes with a view to the final ruin of our present form of government.

Debs, four times the standard-bearer of the Socialists in presidential campaigns, has revealed himself, as we have shown, in such utterances as these:

"As a revolutionist, I have no respect for capitalist property
laws, nor the least scruple about violating them.... I am law
abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

"Let the sturdy toilers of the Pacific Coast raise the Red standard
of revolt."

"All hail to the revolution."

"I enter the prison doors a flaming revolutionist, my head erect,
my spirit untamed, and my soul unconquered."

"In Russia and Germany our valiant comrades are leading the
proletarian revolution.... They are setting the heroic example for
world-wide emulation. Let us, like them, scorn and repudiate the
cowardly compromisers within our ranks, challenge and defy the
robber-class power, and fight it out on that line to victory or
death."

This favorite leader of the radicals of America was convicted by jury of violation of the Espionage Law on September 12, 1918, and two days later sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The case was appealed on the ground that the Espionage Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of free speech. The decision of the United States Supreme Court was handed down on March 10, 1919. In the words of a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 102, "The Court held that the law was not contrary to the Constitution and affirmed the sentence imposed upon Debs by the lower court. The decision was unanimous that the nature and intended effect of his speech was to obstruct recruiting and enlistment in the army."

Yet this same Year Book, in its account of "The Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party" at Chicago in August-September, 1919, says, page 409: "The Convention went on record offering the presidential nomination of the party to Eugene V. Debs, the nomination to be ratified at the 1920 Convention."

On March 5, 1920, at Albany, in the final argument for the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen, according to the "New York Times" of March 6, 1920, Seymour Stedman said of Debs: "He represents in a sense the Socialist movement. Perhaps he represents it more completely than any other man in this country."

In order that the reader may understand the extreme way in which lawbreakers like Debs and Victor L. Berger were justified by those defending the five suspended Socialists at Albany, we give an extract from the testimony of Morris Hillquit on February 19, 1920, as reported in the "New York Times" of the next day:

"The testimony leading up to Mr. Hillquit's admissions was given
after Martin Conboy of counsel for the Judiciary Committee had read
into the record a speech and a signed article by Victor L. Berger.
In the speech, delivered at the Socialist National Convention in
1908, Mr. Berger said:

"'I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when
it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there.'

"In the signed article which appeared in a Socialist newspaper
published in Milwaukee the following year, he wrote:

"'Socialists and workingmen should ... have rifles and the
necessary rounds of ammunition ... and be prepared to back up their
ballots with their bullets.'"

In reply, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920, putting his own far-fetched construction on Victor L. Berger's words, Morris Hillquit himself advanced the doctrine of "a little shooting" in the following statement:

"'History ... has shown that when the privileged minority is about
to lose its privileges ... it tries to destroy reform or lawful
revolutionary movements by force, ... and in a case of this kind it
may come to shooting.

"'It is not at all impossible that, even in this country, when the
majority of the people will be ready to introduce substantial
reform and take away the privileges of the profiteering class by
constitutional, legal methods, these self-same profiteering
interests will take offense and try to play some trick upon the
people, and in that case it is possible--as a matter of prophecy,
not as a matter of program, so far as we are concerned--that the
people of this country will be compelled to supplement their
political action by a little shooting.'"

Testifying the same day, Hillquit endorsed Debs as follows, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920:

"When asked if Debs is a candidate of the Socialist Party for
President, Mr. Hillquit replied:

"'If any voice or influence of mine could accomplish anything, he
certainly will be nominated at the next convention.'

"'The Supreme Court has passed upon the conviction of Debs and
affirmed it,' said ex-Judge Sutherland, of counsel.
'Notwithstanding this judgment, you still declare that Mr. Debs
represents and personifies the attitude of the Socialist Party on
the subject of loyalty to the United States Government?'

"'I do not say that he represents the attitude of the Socialist
Party. I think I said that he represents the highest and noblest
sentiments of United States citizenship and American loyalty....
Debs was convicted only for saying things, not for doing things. I
do not for a moment doubt he said the things he is charged with
having said.' ...

"'Do you uphold and approve of, as a leader of the Socialist Party,
the words that Mr. Debs pronounced, and for which he was
convicted?'

"'I haven't got his complete speech before me. I do not want to
commit the Party in this general way to every statement. I will
say, as a whole, I read his speech at the time and my impression
was that it was a perfectly innocent, honest expression of
opposition to war for very good and patriotic motives.' ...

"'Have you any respect at all for the decision of the tribunal to
the contrary?'

"'I have respect to this effect: that I know that it is final and
binding and in practice will go. I do not have respect in the sense
of believing that it is just, impartial, and well-reasoned out.'
...

"'Mr. Hillquit, do you wish to be understood as saying that you
approve of the words spoken by Mr. Debs for which he was
convicted?'

"'Are you trying to get me a little conviction, also, Judge?' asked
the witness.

"'I am not in a position to indorse every word and every phrase
because I have not the speech before me,' he continued. 'As a rule,
I fully indorsed his statements on the subject of the war,
expressed, I suppose, in that speech and in other speeches.... I
share with all my comrades the greatest respect for Debs, and
cannot think any compliment too high for him.'

"'And you think it was that largeness of view, do you, that led Mr.
Debs to say the things which brought him into conflict with the law
of the United States?'

"'Absolutely, just in the same way as it once happened to one Jesus
of Nazareth.'"

"'And you say that notwithstanding the highest judicial authority
known under the Constitution has declared him guilty of doing
that, and in contempt of that authority, notwithstanding that
authority, you say that he is the man that should be placed in the
President's chair by the votes of the Socialist Party?'

"'I do.'

"'If Mr. Debs were elected in 1920, how would you proceed to
inaugurate[12] him, as he is serving a twenty-year sentence?' asked
Assemblyman Jenks.

"'The chances are that prior to the time he would be called upon to
occupy the chair the powers that be would sober up enough to know
that the present conviction is an improper and inhuman act and
liberate him.'"

On several occasions at the trial, in spite of Hillquit's studied effort to cast an air of innocency over his party, menacing words escaped from this crafty leader. He could not restrain them even at the end, on March 3, 1920, when summing up the case for the Socialist defendants at Albany, according to the following account in the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 4, 1920:

"Justifying the general strike as an emergency weapon, Mr. Hillquit
made this startling statement interpreted in some quarters as an
open threat:

"'The workers of this country have the right "to call a general
strike" and it is well that they should at least hold it in
abeyance as a possible instrument in some cases, in very
exceptional emergencies. I will say that the general strike has
been used abroad for the purpose of enforcing political action.'

"'A labor party is being formed,' Mr. Hillquit said, 'in some parts
of the country. Suppose it should elect representatives to the
Legislature and a capitalist in that Legislature should get up and
say "I don't approve of your programme; get out of my Legislature."

"'I say this would be eminently a case where the workers would be
justified in declaring a general strike until such time as their
constitutional rights are actually accorded to them.'"

To this "veiled threat" Martin Conboy, counsel for the Judiciary Committee, replied the next day in summing up for the prosecution. We quote his words from the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 5, 1920:

"'Under the veil of a simile a threat was employed that if you
gentlemen concluded that these five Socialist Assemblymen should
not sit in this chamber as members of this Assembly a general
strike might be called. In the whole history devoted to the
development of this idea there has been no more frank exposition of
the doctrine than that. It is proof, sufficient and satisfactory to
the point of a demonstration of the charge that has been made in
this case.

"'The threat carries itself further. You must not only admit them,
but you must take their legislative programme and exact it into
law; otherwise the general strike will again be employed.

"'No opportunity is lost by the leaders of the Socialist Party to
impress upon the rank and file that it is impossible to achieve
ultimate triumph by political action. For this reason the American
Federation of Labor is subjected to continuous attacks and
misrepresentation. For this reason Debs, originally an ardent trade
unionist, abandoned and repudiated his former associates after
joining the Socialist Party.'"

The hypocritical defense made by the Socialists at Albany, through which the unchanged character of the unrepentant plotters has constantly revealed itself, should put us on our guard. Brought into the light by wholesale arrests and deportations, all branches of radicalism, in this country and at Moscow, have adopted new tactics of deception. They profess peace and a return to peaceful methods, claim the liberties which belong only to the law-abiding, and hide behind the sympathies of those who are easily taken in. Yet they justify all their misdeeds, and withdraw none of their evil principles, but rather reaffirm them, with subtlety. What does this mean? It means that the old conspirators, whose overt acts have lately crowded our law-courts, hope to fool the American people into letting them continue their propaganda unto lawlessness under a thin mask of conformity to the very laws they seek to destroy.

Although the "Red" conspiracy, as a result of government prosecution, has taken on disguises and gone under ground, it is not, thus, less virulent and dangerous, but more so. Evidence of deceit appeared in the "One Big Union Monthly" for February, 1920, to which lack of space prevents more than a mere allusion. That issue contained articles showing even the I. W. W. preparing an alibi and a disguise. They argued that their organization was not "illegal," and that its famous Preamble meant "evolution" and not "revolution." Another article urged the I. W. W. to give up its name and amalgamate with other industrial unions in a new organization to be known as The One Big Union.

Still more significant, the same magazine for February, 1920, published a new incitement to revolution by Leon Trotzky, together with a "Call for Proletarian International" signed by "The Bureau of the Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions" and an "Appeal of the Russian Industrial Unions to the Workers of the Allied Countries" signed by "The Bureau of the All-Russian Council of Industrial Union." The "call" reads:

"The Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions invites all
economic organizations based on the real and revolutionary class
struggle for the liberation of labor through the proletarian
dictatorship to solidify anew their ranks against the international
league of brigands, to break with the international of
conciliators, and to proceed in unison with the Central All-Russian
Council of Industrial Unions toward the organization of a truly
international conference of all Socialistic labor unions and
veritable revolutionary workers' syndicates.

"We beg all economic labor organizations that accept the program of
the revolutionary class struggle to respond to our call and enter
in a direct touch with us."

The accompanying I. W. W. comment was, "We are sure that our organization will be there." Thus, if it be under ground, the mole still works. Moscow still inflames, unifies and directs the great world-conspiracy against the "Entente Powers" and all the nations that have been looking toward peace. The "Appeal," accompanying the "call," says in part:

"Can it be true, that you, the workers of England, France, Italy
and the United States, will much longer support your governments
and permit your blood to quench the spreading conflagration of the
social revolution? Can it be that the international bandits of the
League of Nations and the thrice-branded Versailles shall be
allowed unhampered to weave their nets for the strangling of the
world proletarian revolution?...

"Down with the bandits of imperialism!

"Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!

"Long live the International Soviet Republic!"

Near the end of his article Trotzky says, according to "The One Big Union Monthly," for February, 1920, page 21, "By thrusting the bourgeoisie away from the helm of state, by taking power into its own hands, the working class is preparing for the creation of Federation of Soviet Republics of Europe and the whole world.... War was and will remain a form of armed exploitation or armed struggle against exploitation."

An editorial note on the same page, immediately below the article of Trotzky, says: "The above article and the APPEAL OF THE RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL UNIONS TO THE WORKERS OF THE ALLIED COUNTRIES are taken from documents on Russia of the working class, written by members of the Soviet Government.... These materials were sent to Fellow Worker Wm. D. Haywood by Comrade Leon Trotzky, the valiant Commissary for War of the victorious Workers' Commonwealth. We are happy to announce that the I. W. W. will be the first to publish these latest documents on peasant and industrial life in Bolshevikland."

Did Martens and Hillquit advise Lenine and Trotzky to disguise their American propaganda by using the Industrial Unions of Russia as their cat's-paw? We ask this because Hillquit has long been "Councillor" in America to the Russian Soviet Republic,[L] while the above method of inflaming American labor unions has been the secret method of the Socialist Party's Rand School of Science for some years--since 1916, at least. These are facts established by documents obtained in the summer of 1919 by raids of the Rand School, put in evidence before the New York State Legislative Committee, Senator Clayton R. Lusk, Chairman, and referred to in the July 30, 1919, issue of "The National Civic Federation Review," from which we quote the following:

"One David P. Berenberg is director of the correspondence
department of the Rand School. From the letter-files seized there,
evidence was produced showing the kind of propaganda conducted
through Berenberg's department. In a carbon copy of a letter to
Harry L. Perkins, of San Diego, Cal., dated June 7, 1916, the
statement was made:

"'When we read of 'preparedness' that is in full force in the camps
of the capitalists, we realize that unless we organize and fit
ourselves to resist, and to take over the government, we will one
day find ourselves where our French and German brothers are today,
dead or maimed in the fray.'

"'In other words,' commented Chairman Lusk, 'for over two years
this Rand School has been advocating armed preparedness to take
over the government.'

"A letter--obviously after a form letter sent to correspondents
generally--dated October 3, 1916, addressed to M. E. Rabb, Xenia,
Ohio, offered as evidence, contained the following:

"'What are you doing when the State robs you and your union and so
makes you helpless to strike? There is only one thing to do: take
over the State.

"'Are the members of your local prepared to take over and conduct
wisely and well the affairs of your town and county? Are you
prepared to meet the militia when the powers of the State and
courts are against you? Are you arming yourself with the knowledge
of the foundations of our society so that when these crises come to
you, you will have an organization strong enough to have foreseen
and forestalled them? Are you training your members in scientific
Socialism?'

"This same adroitly phrased incitement was found in other
correspondence."

This pest-house of treason and lawlessness, the Rand School, Hillquit's pet university of Socialism, ought to be dug up by the roots. And what shall we say of such evidence? Why should the Socialist Party of America hesitate to affiliate with the Third (Moscow) International and approve its "programs and methods" when Hillquit's illegitimate offspring, the Rand School, was teaching such "methods" a year before the Bolsheviki seized Petrograd and the dictatorship? Is Hillquit Lenine's pupil or Lenine's teacher? Is Hillquit, backer of the Rand School propaganda, the same gentle Morris Hillquit who as an "expert on Socialism" testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on February 17, 1920:

"The word 'revolution' does not have for us the romantic
significance of barricade fights or other acts of violence that it
has for most of our newspaper writers and school boys." ("Sun and
New York Herald," February 18, 1920.)

Can this be the same Hillquit who earlier in the trial broke out in the angry threat: "What we say to you, gentlemen: the contemplated act of this Assembly, if consummated, _will ... loosen the violent revolution_." ("New York Evening Sun," January 21, 1920.) Did he allude to some pink tea party?

And perhaps the "school boys" Hillquit referred to are those by his pet institution poisoned and turned into degenerates in the bud of manhood, like poor Oscar Edelman, whose valedictory speech on graduating from a course in the Rand School of Social Science ran thus:

"For us as students, Socialists and Labor Unionists, our work is
laid out. We must help educate the workers of America so that their
slogan, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' be replaced by
the revolutionary slogan, 'abolition of the wage system.' ... In
the great world-struggle which is taking place today, we must take
active part.... The ideals which today inspire Debs and Lenine are
the ideals which inspire us." (Lusk Committee evidence, quoted from
"The National Civic Federation Review," July 30, 1919.)

But of all the sublime performances of Hillquit, that which lays the brightest crown on his veracity was the answer he gave at Albany on February 17, 1920, to the long hypothetical question concerning the attitude of the Socialists should their friends of the Third International, the Bolsheviki, invade the United States.

At this question the redoubtable Mr. Hillquit, according to the "New York Times" of February 18, 1920, "settled back in his chair and smiled" and said: "I should say that the Socialists of the United States would have no hesitancy whatsoever in joining forces with the rest of their countrymen to repel the Bolsheviki who would try to invade our country _and force a form of government upon our people which our people were not ready for and did not desire_." (Italics mine.)

Had Hillquit stopped where the italics began he would have stretched our credulity to the utmost. But if "our people" meant to him American Socialists, we readily believe that invading Bolsheviki, coming to wrest the American dictatorship from our native talent, would find themselves and their undesirable "form of government" pitched into the sea by Hillquit and his crowd. Majority Socialist against Spartacide and Bolshevik against Menshivik--we have seen how one Socialist group repels the "form of government" forced by another.

When we think of the heroic exploits of Hillquit in repelling foreign invaders from America about 1917-18, can we not imagine him hurling one of his deadly manifestoes at his Bolsheviki friends? No doubt when Comrade Martens, the vanguard of the invading Bolsheviki, stormed Hillquit's castle on Riverside Drive with a fee and a commission as "Councillor," the outraged patriot crashed a receipt in full against the invader's outstretched paw.

As we think of Hillquit's love for peaceful "political action"--on the witness stand--those words from his foundling, the "New York Call" of May 1, 1919, return to our minds:

"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future,
has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered
millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It
has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the
masses and the shining example of the martyrs: its spread is
irrepressible....

"The war of the nations has been followed by the war of the
classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and
demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the
great cities for life or death."

Mr. William English Walling, in an article published in the "New York Times," January 20, 1920, asks a pertinent question about the revolutionary activities of the American Socialist Party:

"The 'American Socialist Party,' finds itself compelled, precisely
like Lenine, to pretend to be a peace-loving organization, loyally
accepting constitutional democracy and opposed to violence. Are we
to take it at its own word? Is it possible that a few pious phrases
offered on occasion can deceive the American people as to the
nature of a propaganda organization that is shouting from the
housetops in every corner of the country and every day of the year?

"The only imaginable reason why the public has paid any attention
is that there are two or three organizations more wholly given over
to violence, whereas the Socialist organization gives a share of
its attention to party politics. It was said until recently, 'Oh,
the anarchists are for violence, but the Socialists are for law and
order.' Last August it was found that a large part of the
Socialists were for immediate revolution. Then it was said that the
Communists are revolutionary, but the Socialists are for law and
order. The reasoning was that if the Left Wing was for immediate
revolution, then the Right Wing must be for law and order!"

Mr. Walling expresses an expert opinion, having been a prominent member of Hillquit's party until this organization, at St. Louis in 1917, began the openly lawless course which led to the conviction of a large number of its leaders under the Espionage Law. Moreover, since January, 1920, when Mr. Walling recorded the above opinion, evidence has come to light which shows he was exactly right in saying that the American Socialist Party acted "precisely like Lenine" in pretending "to be a peace-loving organization" because it found "itself compelled" to do so.

The tactics of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff, the Bolshevist "triumvirate" of Russia, and of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens and Morris Hillquit in America, are so similar that the evidence brought by Lincoln Eyre out of Russia perfectly interprets the "weasel words" of Martens and Hillquit on the witness stand at Washington and Albany, respectively. Hillquit, the connecting link, according to his testimony at Albany, February 19, 1920, was born at Riga, Russia; came to America a boy, like so many Russian immigrants; attended New York's public schools; and under the protection of the Stars and Stripes, which he would drag down, has made himself so emphatically one of the "capitalists," whom he hates, that he resides on New York's famous "Riverside Drive," and was able to testify with a smirk, "I flatter myself that I am not a failure." (See printed "Testimony" of the trial of the five Assemblymen for the details.)

A moral failure, without extenuation, most Americans will regard Morris Hillquit. For out of thirty-five years, spent by him on our hospitable shores in getting rich under the protection of our Government, institutions and people, he has used at least twenty in trying to destroy the benefactor that nursed him. See the "New York Evening Telegram" of February 17, 1920, as follows: "Mr. Hillquit was called to the stand as the first witness for the five Assemblymen. He gave his residence as No. 214 Riverside Drive, New York City. Mr. Hillquit said he had lived in this country thirty-five years, and had been a Socialist since the party was organized, in 1900."

This is the man who in 1917 and 1918 backed his organization, so far as he dared, to cripple the people of the United States while they were engaged in a desperate war; and who since has been Lenine's brain in America in trying to set fire to the house of government in which the American people live. Notice his intelligence in the hypocritical Bolshevist refinement of separating the Moscow Soviet Government from the Moscow International, so that one of these may offer our people peace while the other continues to plot our destruction. This distinction was made, with its significance concealed, in Hillquit's testimony at Albany on February 18, 1920, which the Albany "Knickerbocker Press" of the next day, February 19, thus summarized:

"Mr. Hillquit testified at length concerning Soviet Russia.... Mr.
Hillquit also testified that there were differences between Soviet
Government, Bolshevists and the Moscow International. _The latter_,
he said, _did not represent Soviet Russia_, and the Bolshevists, he
said, were merely a national party of Russia." (Italics mine.)

In a cabled account of an interview with Zinovieff, sent by Lincoln Eyre from Russia to the "World," headed, "Riga (by courier via Berlin), Feb. 24," and printed in the "New York World" of February 26, 1920, we have a flood of light showing that the central plot of the Socialist international conspiracy hinges precisely on the distinction which Hillquit had made at Albany a few days before, namely, that the Moscow International does "not represent Soviet Russia." Through the courtesy of the "New York World" we quote from its issue of February 26, 1920, the essential parts of Eyre's statement as follows:

"Bolshevik propaganda abroad, though still as active and insidious
as it has ever been has undergone a radical change of late. That
conclusion was arrived at by a close study of the subject, which I
pursued in Moscow and Petrograd, reinforced by an interview with C.
S. Zinovieff, ruler of the latter city, also President of the
Executive Committee of the Third Internationale and firebrand of
the revolution.

"The Russian Communist Party, which is the Bolsheviki's official
political title, no longer exports agitators chosen from among
members to kindle the flames of revolt in foreign lands. They are
too wise for that antiquated process nowadays. What they do in
these scientific times is to import from the country of his birth
the crudely fashioned product of his own domestic Bolshevism,
subject him to certain finishing processes (including perhaps a
gold lining) and ship him back home again complete in every detail,
smooth running and highly inflammable. That is one of the reasons
why the Soviet Government is prepared to promise and to keep its
promise to refrain from sending forth agents charged with spreading
the gospel of capitalistic annihilation....

"Another reason for the Soviet's willingness to quit propagandizing
abroad is that it has already turned over to the Third
Internationale all business of that kind.... Now, the Third
Internationale has no official connection with the Soviet
Government. It is supposed to be a separate institution. Yet all
its leaders hold office under the Soviets and its funds, which are
considerable, must be derived from Soviet sources. Nevertheless it
is technically, indeed legally, non-governmental, wherefore the
Moscow Cabinet is justified in pledging itself to leave propaganda
to 'friendly' foreign states alone.

"The moving spirit of the Third Internationale is Zinovieff, who,
with Lenine and Trotzky, forms the triumvirate on which Bolshevism
today rests, although he is by no means as big a man as the other
two. Zinovieff is not a member of the Council of Peoples'
Commissaries (the Cabinet), but merely of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, from which the former body derives its powers,
and which itself is subordinate to the supreme executive
legislative judicial organ, the All-Russian Convention of Soviets.
Thus, while the role allotted to him on the administrative stage is
really as prominent as that of any of his fellows, short of Lenine
and Trotzky, Zinovieff can legitimately claim to be without voice
in the actual administration of the Soviet Republic....

"The first point that Zinovieff made clear to me in our talk was
that the Third Internationale is not comparable to the League of
Nations.... The Overlord of Petrograd affirmed, ... 'The Third
Internationale ... is a purely political group. It is a
confederation of the world's Communists, an international coalition
of the Communist Parties already existing in their respective
countries.... The Third Internationale is a going concern, with
some 8,000,000 members.' ...

"'But,' I asked, 'how is your aim of a European world republic of
Soviets to be realized unless there is some international
governmental machine?'

"'There will be some such machine,' Zinovieff replied, 'but
probably it will take the form of a new organization along Soviet
lines. In my view, the revolution will follow the same general
channels it has taken in Russia, with alterations of detail, of
course. Should France overthrow capitalism, for instance, she will
at first establish Sovietism, and subsequently combine with us. To
foresee the mechanical angles of such combination, however, is too
early.'

"'And your propaganda programme,' I ventured, 'is as strong and
far-reaching as ever?'

"The prompt reply was: 'The Third Internationale is primarily an
instrument of revolution. It reunites at Moscow the intelligence
and energy of all the Communist groups the world over. Delegates
from the various national organizations come to us and give and
take knowledge about the cause and return to their respective home
countries refreshed and invigorated. This work will be continued,
no matter what happens, legally or illegally. The Soviet Government
may pledge itself to refrain from propaganda abroad, but the Third
Internationale--never!'"

Let us ponder this description of the Third International by its manager and greatest living expert: its scope, a confederation of the world's Communists, a coalition of the Communist parties of all countries; its size, 8,000,000 members, perhaps greatly exaggerated; its nature, "an instrument of revolution;" and its determination, to carry on propaganda, for the violent seizure of every land by a dictatorship, "no matter what happens, legally or illegally." Let us reflect that it is with this Third International, and not the Russian Soviet Government, that Hillquit's Party in America is affiliated, according to the testimony of the Socialists themselves at Albany. Finally, with these facts for a plummet, let us try to find the bottom of Hillquit's hypocrisy in pretending at Albany that he and his disciples do not believe in "revolution" but only in "evolution."

Before passing from Lincoln Eyre's testimony, we further quote from his cable in the "World" of February 26, 1920, what we may call his description of "the Third International at work," as follows:

"Zinovieff ... is that combination of idealistic Hotspur and
practical executive which is characteristic of many Bolshevist
leaders. Despite his long years in exile with Lenine, to whose
Doctor Johnson he played Boswell ably and loyally, this
shock-haired enthusiastic young Jew--he is to-day scarcely
forty--was able to run Petrograd.... Petrograd is still underfed,
underheated, dirty and desolate, but it continues to live.... For
this Zinovieff, as all-mighty controller of the city's destinies,
... deserves credit....

"Besides having a hand in everything that concerns local
administration, and most things which have to do with national
government, he personally edits and writes many pages of the Third
Internationale's organ, 'The Internationale Communist,' a monthly
magazine of some 250 pages printed simultaneously in Russian,
English, French and German. Moreover, he passes upon all important
printed matter emanating from the Internationale's press. Every
foreign Communist coming to Moscow or Petrograd sees Zinovieff and
gets pointers from him how to propagate Bolshevism.

"In the seven weeks I spent in Moscow, three delegates arrived from
the United States and literally scores from Germany, Hungary,
Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy,
China, Japan, Corea, India, Afghanistan and Asia Minor countries.
The only important states from which few Communistic envoys come
are Britain and France. Practically all these missionaries are
obliged to travel illegally, that is, with false passports or
without any. They slip across the fighting fronts that encircle the
Soviet Republic in astonishing ways, risking death and all forms of
hardship to reach Moscow. The one-time seat of Moscow's Emperors
has become to Communists the world over what Mecca is to the
Mohammedan pilgrims.

"A youthful emissary of the I. W. W. said to me: 'We come here to
drink of the fountain of revolutionary youth.' I asked him what he
thought would happen when Russia's frontiers were opened. 'We shall
come as we come now, but in greater numbers and with greater ease,'
he replied.

"'But won't the Third Internationale send its Russian agitators
abroad then, thus making it unnecessary for you to come here?'
'What for?' he retorted. 'There is no use sending Russians to talk
to American workmen. Americans will close their ears to a foreigner
where they will open them wide to one of their own countrymen. The
Third Internationale is a realistic organization. It has learned
long ago that racial and national prejudices, however misguided
they may be, are deep seated and cannot be overcome in a day. It
aims to get results, and so it lets Americans talk to Americans.'
...

"The Bolsheviki are as eager to precipitate a world revolution as
ever. But at the moment they are even more eager to establish
relations with the markets of the world, so that Russia may be
saved from economic catastrophe.... The Kremlin realizes full well
that it cannot hope to spread Bolshevism by means of its own
people. And with the Third Internationale headed by Zinovieff,
operating in close contact with the National Communist groups, it
knows it does not have to."

Thus the overtures of peace and promises of good behavior made by the Russian Soviet Government to the other Powers are pure humbug; and equally false are the professions of peace in America which Hillquit's branch of the Third International has made to lull the fears of the American people. To get the full force of this parallelism we have only to place the law-breaking Socialist Party of America since 1917 in juxta position with the hypocritical Socialist professions and principles brought out in 1920 during the trial of the Assemblymen at Albany.