The Socialist Party of America

(1920)

Document Download Page

1920

JANUARY

"Hysteria Rampant in the United States: Authorities Take Radicals Seriously, Raid and Crush Them. Thousands Arrested." [events of Jan. 2, 1920] This article from the Buffalo, New York Socialist weekly The New Age reviews the results of the Department of Justice's January 2 raids in that community. Some 83 "alleged anarchists" were arrested in Buffalo as a result of the operation, the paper indicates, including predominantly Russians, Poles, and Hungarians. Only 6 of these proved to be citizens. "Very few" of the non-citizen radicals trapped by the Justice Department were actually "prepared to lead an active hand in any enterprise directed against our government," the paper asserts. Despite its limited efficacy, the government's repressive action had the practical effect of disrupting the left wing movement: "The Socialist Party has been disrupted, sober-minded people have been scared away from the Socialist movement, the political agencies of our ruling classes have been furnished ample excuses for their rule of terror, and thousands of families have been made miserable." Among those arrested was Dr. Anna Reinstein, wife of prominent Communist Boris Reinstein, the paper notes.

“4,500 Arrested in Nationwide Drive; Roundup Continues.” [Jan. 3, 1920] This unsigned news report from the front page of the Milwaukee Leader provides a first account of the Palmer Raids, launched on the night of Jan. 2/3, 1920. The report indicated that the Department of Justice had compiled a list of nearly 60,000 names of alleged radicals in preparation for the raids, and that several thousand warrants had been issued in advance of the operation. At 9 pm on the night of Jan. 2, coordinated raids were “almost simultaneously” launched in a number of leading industrial centers, including Boston, New York, Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, St. Paul, Philadelphia, Chicago, Oakland, and Detroit. Photos and fingerprints were expected to be taken and the Department of Labor was gearing up for anticipated mass deportations, the article indicates.

“’Raids on Radicals Blow to Freedom of United States’: Statement of the Publicity Department of the Socialist Party of America, Jan. 3, 1920.” At 9 pm on the night of January 2/3, 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer and the US Department of Justice, working with an array of law enforcement authorities, launched a coordinated sweep of radicals, focusing on known members of the Communist Party of America, Communist Labor Party, and Industrial Workers of the World. Thousands of warrants were issued and 4500 alleged radicals were quickly arrested in the dragnet. On Jan. 3, 1920, the Publicity Department of the Socialist Party issued this statement condemning these raids, calling them “gravest blow yet struck at the permanence of American institutions,” and noting that if they are continued, “this policy will place the United States in the forefront of the reactionary nations of the present day.” The statement notes that “Between the Socialist Party and the two Communist Parties there is at present a controversy in the matter of tactics and program; between the Socialist Party and the Industrial Workers of the World there has frequently been bad blood and controversy.” However, “when the constitutional rights of Americas are assailed, all differences are forgotten, and the injury to the one group becomes an injury to all.” The DoJ’s reactionary repression only fueled the cause of those who argued the falsity of democracy under capitalism, the statement indicates: “The Socialist Party holds that the best way to give ammunition to that school of thought, the best arguments to give these anti-political radicals, the best possible material for the growth of the direct action sentiment is to continue this persecution. In this grave hour, there is but one policy that leads to safety; the utmost freedom of speech, of thought, and of conscience.”

“How Did You Vote?”—Statement of the Milwaukee Leader, Jan. 3, 1920. The Palmer Raids of Jan. 2-3, 1920, were a veritable Pearl Harbor attack on the American Left and caused a frantic reaction in all quarters, as this front page missive from Victor Berger’s Milwaukee Leader demonstrates. The effect of the large, bold italic type of the original is recreated here. “Every union working man in the United States who thinks honestly, prepare to be arrested! Get ready to go to jail! The White Terror has begun! YOU are on the list of Mitchell Palmer, who seeks to kill ideas by smashing them! The struggle is on in all its filthy aspect!” the front page statement screams. “The blow falls first on the Communists! Next it will be the Socialists! Then the workers who believe in their union cards! There is no escape! The infamous gang that has stolen possession of the finest land God ever created has so decreed.” Far from heading for underground, the conclusion remains true to the Socialist Party’s parliamentarist ideology: “These agents of Big Business who are pulling off these raids are Republicans and Democrats. Don’t forget that. And remember there is still the ballot box.”

“Hands Off Russian Republic: Statement of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of America, Jan. 5, 1920.” One can probably list 10 reasons for the 1919 split of the Socialist Party into rival Social Democratic and Communist organizations. NOT on this list is the perspective of either tendency towards Soviet Russia. ALL wings of the 1919 Socialist Party of America completely supported the Bolshevik Revolution, as this January 1920 “Hands Off Soviet Russia” declaration of the SPA’s governing National Executive Committee demonstrates. It says of the Bolshevik Revolution: “Begun in November 1917, it has, during the past two years, taken deep root among the workers and peasants of Russia, who, through their soviets, have been forging a state based upon industrial democracy. All plots to undermine the trust of the Russian workers and peasants in their chosen leaders and attempts to overthrow the Soviet government by means of a counterrevolution have hopelessly failed because the system of government which the revolutionary workers and peasants have established is of their own creation and controlled by them.... The Soviet government is now stronger than ever. The Soviet army has defeated the armies of the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie, and Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, and the other tsarist leaders of hired military bands have been almost completely annihilated.... This was made possible because the Russian workers and peasants were united in their determination to defend their Socialist fatherland from foreign invasion and counterrevolution, and also because the organized Socialist and labor movements of the world have come to the aid of the Russian workers’ republic, and have served notice upon their governments that they will not permit the sacrifice of the Soviet Republic on the altar of world imperialism.” Etc.

“Nuorteva Says Spies Helped to Frame Program of Communists.” [Jan. 7, 1920] This short news brief from the front page of the Milwaukee Leader announces that (1) the Department of Justice had issued a warrant for the arrest for deportation of Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, head of the Russian Soviet Government Bureau in New York; (2) Santeri Nuorteva, secretary to Martens, announced agents of the Department of Justice had actively participated in the formulation of Communist Party platform planks, “which now form the basis of the persecution of thousands of people.” Nuorteva also asserted that “we can prove that the chief figures in such celebrated bomb plots were agents of a similar nature” and that the Russian Soviet Government Bureau “would welcome an opportunity to make good these assertions before the proposed Senate investigating committee.” Nuorteva also promised to prove the squandering of funds loaned by the American government to the pre-Bolshevik government of Russia “on abominable plots and intrigues.”

“Let the Facts Come Out. An Editorial from the Milwaukee Leader, Jan. 8, 1920.” This Milwaukee Leader editorial, probably written by John Work, supports the general theory advanced by Santeri Nuorteva on Jan. 7, 1920, that agents of the Department of Justice had participated in the fabrication of Communist Party planks which were then applied against radicals across America during the Palmer Raids. The editorialist urges a hearing for Nuorteva and Martens and notes the Leader “knows the wiles of capitalists and old party officials too well not to have suspected these very activities that are now charged by Nuorteva. In fact, we expressed our suspicion that the bomb plots were concocted for the purpose of creating an excuse to prosecute radicals—also that there were spies helping to promote the plan to wreck the Socialist Party last spring and summer. We did not have tangible evidence that any particular Left Winger was a spy. But, the suddenness with which the fight was sprung and the terrific campaign of lies that was waged against the Socialist Party indicated that there was a malevolent desire to ruin the usefulness of the party altogether...” There is a definite similarity in the world view of the veteran of the Socialist Party, Nuorteva, and the veteran of the Socialist Party who wrote the editorial—that American Ultra-Leftism was in measure a machination of the Justice Department intended to destroy American radicalism.

“Socialist Party Going Strong!” by Jack Carney [Jan. 23, 1920] Sarcastically titled commentary on the state of the rival Socialist Party of America from Communist Labor Party NEC member and newspaper editor Jack Carney of Duluth, Minnesota. Carney argues that the SPA’s actions in the matter of the 5 expelled New York Socialist assemblymen validates the Communist analysis of the SPA. The expulsion “was a deathblow to the Socialist Party until—prominent capitalist politicians, lawyers, and masters of industry sensed that this action on the part of the New York Assembly proved the contention of the communists that simple political action would never emancipate the working class and that the capitalist class dictatorship would never permit a working class majority in any legislative assembly to function, even in a pseudo-revolutionary manner.” The bourgeoisie thus came to the aid of the Socialist Party in its own class defense with legal defense fundraising and contributions of personal service, Carney indicates.

“Ben Hanford—A Song and A Sword,” by William M. Feigenbaum [Jan. 30, 1920] This article by New York Socialist journalist William Feigenbaum commemorates the 10th anniversary of the death of two-time Socialist Party Vice Presidential candidate Ben Hanford—printer and author. In addition, Feigenbaum notes that his colleague on the staff of the New York Call was a “great orator.” “There never was a man, with the exception of Gene Debs, who so captured the imagination of the workers,” Feigenbaum declares. “He was clear, and logical, and burning. His slight figure, his physical frailties would be forgotten as his piercing eyes would bore through you, as his eloquent words would ring out, ‘The working class, may it ever be right, but right or wrong, the working class,’ were the words with which he would close his greatest speeches.” Hanford’s final effort, fundraising to save The Call despite the cancer which would ultimately kill him, is melodramatically recounted, as are his final words, said to have been scrawled on a piece of paper as he drew his final breaths: “I WOULD THAT MY EVERY HEART’S BEAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE WORKING CLASS, AND THROUGH THEM FOR ALL HUMANITY.” An example of the quasi-religious aspect of Socialism and a demonstration that hagiography was by no means the exclusive property of any one tendency of American radicalism.

FEBRUARY

“ The “Reds” in America From the Standpoint of the Department of Justice,” by Arthur Wallace Dunn [Feb. 1920] An informed (if slightly unhinged) discussion of the “Red” menace from the perspective of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, published in the pages of the popular intellectual magazine, The Review of Reviews. Dunn states that “The evidence which has been collected by the Department of Justice is so conclusive of a gigantic conspiracy to destroy the government of the United States that it is really alarming.” He has great confidence that “the machinery of the law—once set in motion and backed by public sentiment” will defeat this “gigantic conspiracy,” however, since when “stripped of all subterfuge, and held up to the light of day in all its hideous aspects, the anarchistic movement is simply an attempt of the very few to control the vast majority.” Dunn makes precious little distinction between anarchism and communism in his analysis, stating matter of factly that “The principal activities of the anarchists in this country are through what is called ‘The Communist Party.’” Dunn sees this group as consisting very largely of radical immigrants: “Of the arrested and suspected anarchists and communists, 9 out of every 10 are foreigners,” he states. The native-born element is said to be “less bloodthirsty and less given to violence than the foreigners,” although adding that “many of them border on the verge of insanity; many others are women with minds gone slightly awry, morbid, restless, and seeking the sensational, craving for something, they know not what.” By way of contrast, Dunn states that “the foreign element, on the other hand, is absolutely destructive, very aggressive and determined, and constitutes a large proportion of the anarchists. This element is deemed by the Department of Justice to be very dangerous, and it must be handled vigorously if the spread of communism and anarchism is to be checked.” Dunn notes that Attorney General Palmer and the Department of Justice were pursuing alien radicals vigorously and that they would continue deporting those arrested and charged to the countries of their origin, which would be obliged to take back their citizens under the established principles of international laws.

“Letter to C.E. Ruthenberg in New York from Marion E. Sproule in Boston.”[Feb. 4, 1920] Although exceedingly short, this note from Massachusetts CPA State Secretary Marion Sproule to Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg adds a bit of esoteric detail to our understanding of the structure of the underground CPA—that it was Ruthenberg who not only conceived of the replacement of state-based organization with organization in districts around “industrial centers” (previously known), but that Ruthenberg also was the originator of the 10 member “group”as the primary party organization of the new structure. Sproule also asks Ruthenberg about the infamous $100 “assessment”for Nicholas Hourwich’s trip to Moscow as International Delegate, relayed by John Ballam —an unauthorized end-run around a decision of the CEC that would ultimately prove to be one of the festering issues behind the split of the Ruthenberg group (including Sproule) in April 1920.

MARCH

“Application of the Socialist Party of America for Membership in the Communist International. A letter from Otto Branstetter to Grigorii Zinoviev, March 12, 1920.” Even after suspending and expelling a majority of the members fo the Socialist Party for endorsing the program of a formal Left Wing faction within the party, the rump of the organization approved via referendum vote a minority plank on international affiliation calling for the SP to immediately join the Communist International. This is the letter which SP National Executive Secretary Otto Branstetter composed and sent to Moscow in accordance with this decision of the party membership. Branstetter’s official letter, typed up by future National Executive Secretary Bertha Hale White, was pro forma and made no concrete case for inclusion of the Socialist Party in the Comintern. It was dispatched to Russia together with the rejected “Majority plank” and the approved “Minority plank” on international affiliation.

“Draft of a Supplemental Appeal to the Executive Committee of the Communist International from the Socialist Party of America, circa March 12, 1920,” by Otto Branstetter” While the official application for inclusion in the Communist International submitted on behalf of the Socialist Party of America by its National Executive Secretary, Otto Branstetter, was tepid and certain of immediate rejection, there was considered a strong appeal affirming with vigor the SPA’s credentials for membership. This fascinating document is a draft of a supplemental appeal to the ECCI composed by Branstetter. The Socialist Party’s opposition to the European war is characterized as militant, consistent, and nearly unanimous. The SP’s officials are characterized as “no less loyal and devoted and steadfast in maintaining the position of the Party,” as examplified by the draconian legal action taken against them by the “black reaction” of the capitalist state. “There was no split in the American Socialist party on account of or during the war. The split in this country occurred a year after the signing of the armistice” and “was largely composed of comrades who had never been affiliated with the Socialist Party until after the signing of the armistice and of those who, though affiliated, were conspicuously silent and inactive during the war.” The courage and capability of those Left Wing leaders is called into question by Branstetter, who observes “the fact that the most prominent and influential leaders in the recent split have fled to safety in foreign countries, while their deluded and deserted followers are being thrown into jails and penitentiaries by the thousands, is significant of the caliber and character of those leaders.” The leaders of the Socialist Party are held up in contradistinction to the successionists as the authentic representatives of American radicalism, worthy of inclusion in the Communist International in their stead.

APRIL

“Letter on Unity to David Karsner in New York City from Eugene V. Debs in Atlanta, April 30, 1920.” In this letter written from Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, Socialist leader Gene Debs clarifies statements about Socialist unity that he had made in person to New York Call journalist David Karsner during a previous visit (published April 15, 1920). Debs states that Karsner’s published report of their meeting was correct “in all essential particulars.” Debs reiterates that “there is no fundamental difference, in my opinion, between the great majority of the rank and file of the three parties; no difference that will not yield to sound appeal in the right spirit.” Debs notes that blunders had been made by members of all three parties, errors which had been “aggravated by the war hysteria,” but by self-critical admission of these mistakes “an understanding is possible that will embrace a vast majority of all the factions that composed the party prior to its separation.” Debs adds that “I personally know most of the members of all these factions, and I know them to be equally loyal and true, and equally eager to serve the cause.” Debs states that due to the banning of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party in various jurisdiction, “we either have to enter the campaign as the Socialist Party or not at all.” Debs believes that common engagement of all three parties in the campaign under the Socialist Party banner would result in a unitary organization “so welded together, so completely one in solidarity and sympathy and understanding that there will be little inclination to part company and reestablish a divided and discordant household.” Debs declares that “Differences there will always be, especially among Socialists, and fortunately so, but wise men profit by their differences and do not permit themselves to be throttled by them. For myself, I have no stomach for factional quarreling and I refuse to be consumed in it. If it has to be done others will have to do it. I can fight capitalists but not comrades.”

MAY

“An Open Letter to Eugene V. Debs: Issued by the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of America.” [circa May 1919] The May 1920 Convention of the Socialist Party of America nominated Eugene V. Debs as its candidate for President for an unprecedented fifth time. Although imprisoned in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Debs accepted the nomination. The Communist Party of America was aghast at Debs’ decision and issued this “open letter” to him as a leaflet. “We presume, Comrade Debs, that you are ignorant of the facts and unacquainted with all that transpired within the Socialist movement this last year,” the open letter reads, detailing the opportunistic degeneration of the party in 1919-20, particularly the ultra-patriotic defense made in the context of the hearings over the suspension of the five New York State Assemblymen. “Between the Communist Party and the Socialist Party there can be no compromise. The latter is the most dangerous enemy of the working class and as such, we shall wage a bitter struggle against it. Their attempt to use your name in order to fool the masses will avail them of nothing. Their betrayal of Socialism has been too complete and too cowardly. Not even your name can hide their counterrevolutionary tendency. The class-conscious workers of America are through with the stinking carcass that calls itself the Socialist Party of America,” the open letter rages.

“Dictatorship and the International,” by Morris Hillquit. [May 1920] Speech by the International Secretary of the Socialist Party of America delivered at the 1920 New York Convention of the party. Hillquit, supportive of the Russian Revolution and the legitimacy of Lenin and Trotsky’s government, calls the Third International “a nucleus, but no more than that, of a new International.” Hillquit objects to any international organization which might impose theoretical interpretations and tactical policies on member parties, noting that “the rule of self-determination in matters of policy and matters of struggle” had been a fundamental principle of both the First and Second Internationals. In particular, Hillquit considers the Third International’s interpretation of the phrase “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” to be historically erroneous (citing the phrase’s origin in Marx’s 1875 “Critique of the Gotha Program”) and tactically disastrous, opening the the Socialist movement to abrogation of democratic norms and victimization by its bourgeois opponents. Hillquit seeks the SPA’s participation in a future International including both the Russian Communist Party as well as the Independent Labour Party of Britain, the Socialist Party of France, and the Independent Socialists of Germany.

“Socialism—The Hope of the World: Keynote Address to the 1920 Socialist Party Convention: New York City—May 8, 1920,” by Morris Hillquit Morris Hillquit marks his return to active political life with this keynote address to the 1920 convention of the Socialist Party of America. Hillquit’s perspective on the split of the Socialist movement is sanguine rather than sanguinary, a byproduct of the world war and a difficulty through which the SPA had steered a middle course between social-patriotism on the one hand and revolutionary phrase mongering on the other: “All over the world Socialism was split into contending and antagonistic camps, ranging from those who had betrayed the vital principles of the movement during the war and were cooperating with its enemies after the war, to those who, in their impulse of resentment and impatience, were ready to surrender the most effective methods of the Socialist propaganda, the slow but certain methods of political education and struggle. The question then was whether the Socialists of America would remain true to the fundamental principles and methods of the militant working class Socialist Party, rejecting the suicidal compromises of the extreme right as well as the sterile revolutionary phrases of the extreme left. We did.” In the current period, then external enemy—the forces of reaction—represented the most grave threat to the SPA. Hillquit declares that “within the last year all the powers of darkness and reaction in the country have united in a concerted attack upon the Socialist movement unparalleled in ferociousness and lawlessness. The obvious object of the provocative onslaught is to crush the spirit and paralyze the struggles of the Socialist movement or to goad it into a policy of desperation and lawlessness, thus furnishing its opponents the pretext for wholesale violent reprisals and physical extermination.” Hillquit slams Woodrow Wilson for his hypocrisy and remains upbeat about the SPA’s prospects. “The only active and organized force in American politics that combats reaction and oppression, that stands for the large masses of the workers and for a social order of justice and industrial equality is the Socialist Party,” Hillquit states, adding the prediction that the party will “double or treble its membership before the year is over and will poll upward of 2 million votes for its Presidential candidates” in the 1920 campaign.

"Socialists for Constitutional Methods: In Fighting Spirit... Socialist Convention Arouses General Interest... Splendid Speeches by Hillquit, Stedman, and Others..." [events of May 8-12, 1920] Unsigned news account of the 1920 National Convention of the Socialist Party of America published in the Buffalo, New York weekly, The New Age — a paper loyal to the SPA's Regular wing. The article claims that while the SPA's membership had fallen to just 24,000 in September 1919, it had subsequently rebounded to 40,000 (an outright fabrication, internal party documents have subsequently revealed). Plans of the organization to combine its monthly Bulletin with the weekly newspaper The Eye-Opener to form a new monthly magazine called The Socialist World are revealed. Party leader Morris Hillquit's keynote speech to the convention is quoted at length, including a section in which Woodrow Wilson and his administration was was lit up for its gross hypocrisy: "Wilson was elected by the vote of Socialists. But Wilson, the pacifist, drew us into the world’s most frightful war. Wilson, the anti-militarist, imposed conscription upon the country. Wilson, the democrat, arrogated to himself autocratic powers grossly inconsistent with a republican form of government. Wilson, the liberal, revived the medieval institutions of the inquisition of speech, thought, and conscience. His administration suppressed or tried to suppress radical publication, raided homes and meeting places of its political opponents, destroyed their property, and assaulted their persons. Wilson, the apostle of the 'new freedom,' infested the country with stool pigeons, spies, and agents provocateur, and filled the jails with political prisoners.” A “lively” debate over the party's platform spearheaded by a left opposition including Louis Engdahl, Bill Kruse, Benjamin Glassberg, and Walter Cook is noted, with Engdahl identified as “leader of the radicals.” James Oneal answered on behalf of the Regulars, declaring: “Let it go throughout the country that you favor a dictatorship of the proletariat and you cease to be a political party. Introduce such a resolution and you must do your work underground... Bourgeois democracy with all its shams and illusions permits in normal times decision by an honest and fair discussion. To espouse the dictatorship program would turn every such democracy into an absolute autocracy.” Oneal and the Regulars ultimately triumphed over Engdahl and the Left on the question of the declaration of principles proposed by the radicals by a vote of 103 to 33, the article notes.

“The Winds of Reaction: News of the Socialist Party Convention.” (Communist Labor Party News) [events of May 8 to 14, 1920] This hostile analysis of the 1920 convention of the Socialist Party by an unnamed Communist Labor Party member seems to have been written from press accounts rather than on the basis of actual attendance, which limits its utility as a primary document of the SP. Nevertheless, the piece does offer an interesting view of CLP doctrine and the group’s political horizons. The SPA Left Wing of Louis Engdahl and Bill Kruse is the recipient of surprisingly harsh criticism, called” Centrist” here. The CLP journalist argues that” staying in” the party, the position advocated by Kruse and Engdahl,” means nothing more than lending financial and moral support to the counterrevolutionist who have firmly decided to keep the SP label no matter how many members it costs them.” There can be no organizational unity between the pro-Third International Left Wing and the dominant Regular Party faction, called the” Hillquit faction” here. Hillquit is called the” oracle” of the Socialist Party and the group is ridiculed for an inability to even half fill the 12,000 seat Madison Square Garden to launch its 1920 Presidential campaign. The writer analyzes the published words of SP leaders Hillquit, Victor Berger, and James Oneal and concludes that” the stand then of the Socialist Party is not to overthrow bourgeois democracy, which in reality is capitalist class dictatorship, and to establish in its place a workers’ dictatorship, but...to cry for the good old times of long ago, to try to reestablish normal times so that bourgeois democracy might again have an opportunity to be honest and fair.” The Socialist Party is dismissed as being” reactionary to the core.”

“The Socialist Party Convention,” by Ammon A. Hennacy. [May 19, 1920] An uncommon document, a critical first-hand account of the 1920 Socialist Party Convention in New York from the perspective of the Left Wing minority. About 140 delegates were in attendance at this convention, split about 2-to-1 between a Center-Right bloc of party regulars (Morris Hillquit, Jacob Panken, James Oneal, Victor Berger, Meyer London, John Work, Lazarus Davidow, etc.) against an organized Left Wing group including J. Louis Engdahl, William Kruse, Benjamin Glassberg, and Walter Cook. A blow-by-blow account of the convention is given, with an emphasis on the inconsistencies of the majority group and the focused efforts of the majority to railroad its platform and terminate debate of unpleasant matters. Hennacy notes that debate critical of the “patriotic” defense of the five Socialist Assemblymen expelled from the New York legislature was terminated through machine methods and the entire record of the debate expunged from the minutes and erased from the published record of the gathering in the party press.

“The Socialist Party Convention,” by Jack Carney [May 21, 1920] Communist Labor Party NEC member and editor of Duluth Truth Jack Carney grudgingly provides a brief commentary to the paper’s readers on the May 8-14, 1920 Convention of the Socialist Party of America. The convention had cynically and opportunistically nominated Debs as its Presidential nominee in 1920, Carney notes. “They named Debs because they realized that the wonderful personality and sterling integrity of Debs would be the means of giving them a new lease of life. They lied to and betrayed Debs. They lied about the Third International, when they told Debs it was an organization confined solely to Russia. They betrayed him when they adopted a program that they knew Debs would repudiate. Only those workers who have no backbone or brains will join the Socialist Party or maintain their allegiance to it. The worker who has a serious purpose in life will shun the Socialist Party like he would the little animal whose name has become synonymous with odoriferous infamy.” The decision of the convention to continue to attempt to affiliate with the Comintern with conditions was nothing more than a hypocritical ploy, Carney states. “Let us not waste any more time over the Socialist Party convention, but get down to business. We need to hear the sound of marching men, marching along the road to industrial freedom, rather than the marching of politicians to the political pie-counter,” Carney declares.

JUNE

“ The Socialist Convention,” by Harry W. Laidler [June 1920] Since no official stenographic report of the 1920 Socialist Party Convention in New York City was kept, due to the party’s grim financial state, this lengthy and detailed article on the gathering prepared for the readers of the magazine of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society is of particular value to historians of 1920s radicalism. Laidler includes what appears to be a very nearly complete stenographic report of the keynote speech of party leader Morris Hillquit, making his first appearance at a party conclave in nearly two years. Hillquit blisters the hypocrisy, militarism, and anti-democratic behavior of President Woodrow Wilson and his regime, noting the purported pacifist had drawn the nation into “the world’s most frightful war,” had established a large standing army and nay, had imposed conscription, had wielded autocratic powers against his opponents, truncating freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience, filling the nation’s jails with political prisoners and creating a climate that cast such dubious fellows as Palmer, Burleson, Lusk, and Ole Hanson to the political fore. “The only active and organized force in American politics that combats reaction and oppression, that stands for the large masses of the workers and for a social order of justice and industrial equality is the Socialist Party,” Hillquit declared. Three major matters were the subject of factional fighting between Party Regulars and a Chicago-based Left Wing, all of which were controlled by the regulars: a statement of principles (103-33), a party platform (80-60), and the matter of international affiliation (90-50). The convention nominated imprisoned party orator Gene Debs as its Presidential standard-bearer for the 5th time, with party founder Seymour Stedman his running mate. The convention also voted to return the Young People’s Socialist League to party control and debated at length essentially a United Front proposal aimed at reestablishing a unified socialist movement.

"Seymour Stedman: Socialist Candidate for Vice-President,” by William M. Feigenbaum [June 17, 1920] Campaign biography of the Socialist Party of America's 1920 candidate for Vice President of the United States by prominent Socialist Party journalist William Morris Feigenbaum. Although Stedman was a prominent lawyer in this period, his working class background and activity as a pioneer member of the Social Democracy of America is emphasized here, with nary a word about Stedman's activity after being elected a member of the Illinois State Legislature in 1912.

"Letter to Eugene V. Debs at Atlanta Federal Prison from Morris Hillquit at Saranac Lake, NY, June 30, 1920." At its most critical juncture, fighting a two front war between government repression and factional strife, the Socialist Party of America found its two top factional peacemakers out of action, with Morris Hillquit at a sanitarium in upstate New York attempting to recover from tuberculosis while fiery orator Gene Debs continued his prison stay in Atlanta. This letter from Hillquit to Debs attempts to explain the thinking behind the positions taken by the Regular majority at the May 1920 Socialist Party Convention to the party's Presidential nominee. Attempting to assuage the firebrand Debs' fears, Hillquit declares that "Neither the platform nor the Declaration of Principles, nor the resolution on international relations were drawn with a view to making the party more 'respectable' or 'conservative.' On the contrary, it was my intention in framing the document — an intention which I believe was fully shared by the delegates at the convention — to uphold the radical position which has characterized the Party during the last few years, and to surrender nothing.” Hillquit additionally notes that the lack of orthodox Marxist terminology in the 1920 convention documents represented a step forward, with recent events having “convincingly demonstrated” to Hillquit “the dense and seemingly impregnable ignorance of the average American in matters of technical Socialistic and sociological nomenclature, and his practical inability to comprehend in abstract terms.” Hillquit continues that “It is perfectly useless to attempt to explain our conception of such terms as 'Social revolution,' 'class struggle,' 'proletariat,' etc. To the unschooled mind the one will always mean a barricade fight accompanied by terrorism, guillotining, etc. — the other an interminable succession of arbitrary and deliberate strikes and beating up of scabs, and the third, a mass of hoodlums. I am now more convinced than ever that in order to get our message across we must divorce ourselves from the worship of phrases, and talk the plainest possible English.” Hillquit also reaffirms his support of Soviet Russia, asserting “I believe our comrades in Russia are doing the most inspiring work ever attempted in the history of our race. I feel an abiding confidence that sooner or later — and probably sooner rather than later — they will evolve a truly Socialistic order of society in Russia, which will in may ways serve as a model to the entire civilized world. So long as they fight against international forces of capitalism and reaction, I shall always support them with all the weapons at my command.” This sentiment does not imply a willingness to accept every dictum from Moscow, Hillquit hastens to add.

JULY

“Correspondence Relating to the Application of the South Slavic Federation for Readmission to the Socialist Party of America from Frank Petrich, Secretary.” [July 1, 1920] The Slovenian-dominated South Slavic Federation withdrew from the Socialist Party on Sept. 20, 1918, over the issue of the war (the Slovenian and Serbian members of the federation being generally pro-war in orientation, the SPA maintaining a strong anti-militarist line throughout). The anti-war and revolutionary socialist Croatian section stayed within the SPA before leaving for the Communist movement in 1919, but the changed situation after the termination of the war left the Slovenians on the outside looking in. This document collects several pieces of correspondence to and from Frank Petrich, the Slovenian Secretary of the South Slavic Federation, dealing with the federation’s ongoing effort to gain readmission to the Socialist Party. The NEC of the Socialist Party was in no forgiving mood, it seems, as the first formal proposal for readmission was defeated on June 1, 1920 by a vote of 6-1. Petrich continued his campaign for readmission, however, writing an extensive letter to NEC member William Henry of Indiana on June 26 attempting to explain the situation within the South Slavic Federation. Petrich unapologetically skirts the issue of the federation’s pro-war stance. “We were against the war then, as we are against it today. But the war came in spite of our opposition. ...We could not believe that passivity in such a crisis is a virtue of Socialism; we thought such tactics erroneous because it does not allow to exploit the situation in the best interests of international Socialism. There were many problems the war had to settle—problems in which the working class had interests. Of course, our thought was wrong because we were in minority—and as a rule the minorities are always ‘wrong,” Petrich coyly asserts. Petrich indicates that a section of the Slovenian and Serbian socialists were coquetting with “Laborism” [the Farmer-Labor Party], a trend which would “become impossible” if the South Slavic Federation were readmitted. Petrich states he would be in attendance at the forthcoming July 10, 1920, physical meeting of the NEC, at which the matter of the South Slavic Federation’s readmission would be reconsidered.

"Debs and the Socialist Party.” (commentary in The Toiler) [July 2, 1920] This article from the front page of the United Communist Party's “legal" labor weekly attempts to gauge the mindset of Gene Debs, fiery orator and icon of American Socialism. In the inner-party conflict of 1919, the “Right Wing leaders of the party in control of the party machinery overrode all the constitutional provisions and rules of the party and expelled the Left Wing,” in the summary view of the unnamed writer, adding “Either one group or the other had to leave the party. The Right Wing held the party machinery and used its power to hold the party." Between expulsions, defections, and the withdrawal of tens of thousands of disgusted members, the ranks of the Socialist Party of America had fallen from 100,000 to a mere 15,000, the author indicates. In desperation to revive their flagging organization, the so-called “Right Wing leaders” had made an appeal to the rank and file using “the magic name of Debs.” Ignoring the fact that the SPA's top leadership had amicably shared an organization with Debs for over a quarter century, the writer asserts that “the Hillquits, Stedmans, and Bergers” had "never liked Debs” and that Debs was himself befuddled behind bars. “He does not understand the depth to which the Socialist Party has sunk in its repudiation of Revolutionary Socialism,” the author contends. Debs had allowed himself to be nominated for President in an effort to bring about a reunification of the Left and Right, in the writer's estimation, but this was impossible. Further, he declares, “it might as well be said frankly that while Debs would quickly repudiate the present positionof the Socialist Party and its leadership were he outside of prison and fully informed, at the same time he is not a Communist in fundamental understanding. Emotionally and through his revolutionary spirit he is with the Left, but not through understanding and acceptance of Communist principles.” The writer concludes that “No revolutionary Socialist will support the Socialist Party because Debs is its candidate.... Debs’ name cannot cover the reactionary character of the Socialist Party. Rather will the fact that the party has tried to camouflage its reactionary character by trying to pull Debs down to its level excite the complete disgust of every revolutionary worker."

“Debs Speaks from Atlanta,” by Irwin St. John Tucker [Aug. 28, 1920] A de facto campaign speech from behind prison bars by Gene Debs, running his 5th campaign for President of the United States. Tucker provides extensive quotations from Debs, who concentrates on the coal situation in America as the “supreme and vital issue” in the coming campaign. The preoccupation of the Democrat Cox and the Republican Harding is with the false issue of American endorsement of the League of Nations, Debs observes, while proclaiming that institution to be dead: “Our entry into it could not revive it, could only still further putrefy the corpse. And men who are fighting on an issue such as that are degrading themselves.” On the other hand, the critical issue of the nation’s coal supply—which imperiled thousands—was being pointedly ignored by Governor Cox and Senator Harding. In contrast, Debs’ outlines his plan: “The Socialist proposition is this: we are proposing to take possession of the coal fields, to pay the miners at work the full value of all the coal they dig, so that they may build decent homes, educate their children, and live in comfort; and then charge to the public exactly what it costs to dig and distribute the coal.” Debs critically asserts that “We have some comrades in our Party who have been too timid and who have patterned after the capitalist politicians whom I utterly detest. These comrades have no convictions about anything and are willing to say or omit almost anything for the purpose of corralling votes.” This he considers an error, as those voters who are won by soft-selling Socialist principles were sure to depart the cause when the reaction counterattacked. “We have some comrades in our Party who have been too timid and who have patterned after the capitalist politicians whom I utterly detest. These comrades have no convictions about anything and are willing to say or omit almost anything for the purpose of corralling votes. I never could find it in me to make a speech and withhold anything for fear that I might shoo away a voter. If a man is shooable, I do not want him. I want those who are responsive to my message and who will stick when the crisis comes,” Debs declares.

SEPTEMBER

“America Turns to Socialism,” by Morris Hillquit [Sept. 4, 1920] An upbeat assessment of American Socialist prospects in the 1920 campaign by the SPA’s leading figure outside of prison walls. Hillquit notes a trebling of the socialist vote throughout Europe and sees the likelihood of a similar circumstance developing in the USA: “The people here as elsewhere are disillusioned with the war and its results. They feel that the colossal destruction of life and property has been in vain; that the victory of our arms brought to the world neither security nor social justice. They know that true wages have been badly cut, that prime necessaries of decent existence have been put beyond their reach through monstrous price increases, and that their standards of life are being steadily depressed, while profiteering capitalists have made and are still making fabulous new fortunes. They see industries dislocated, commerce disrupted, and the precarious world peace menaced anew by the incapable and rapacious governments of the ruling classes—and they turn to Socialism for relief.” Hillquit notes that the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had “opened new vistas to the oppressed of all nations,” while the ham-handed intervention against the fledgling Soviet Republic had “served to intensify class feelings.” Despite the economy’s comparative strength in America, Hillquit asserts that “our government has managed to create an immense volume of political resentment through an absurd reactionary policy of repression,” alienating the workers of the primary industries of coal and the railroads by one-sidedly enforcing the employers’ line on wages and hours. Hillquit does not see the new Farmer-Labor Party as a significant threat to the SPA, believing it to an “indigestible combination” of labor, farmer, and middle class programs and as such “doomed to failure.” “The conservative trade unionists and farmers will vote for the old parties. The radicals among them will vote for Debs,” Hillquit declares.

“Manifesto to Socialist Youth: Adopted by the Reorganizational Conference of the New York Young People's Socialist League, September 5 & 6, 1920.” The New York state organization of the Socialist Party’s youth section reorganized itself at a conference held in New York city on Sept. 5-6, 1920, which issued this “Manifesto to Socialist Youth.” It briefly recounts the history of the YPSL during the 1919-1920 period: “A few of the younger comrades, influenced by the older ones, who were opposed to the Socialist Party, tried to bring the party differences into the YPSL. Instantaneously, the YPSL was turned into a battleground, where the whole “Left Wing” controversy took up the time of the organization. Instead of fighting capitalism, the comrades fought themselves.” As a result and “Independent YPSL” was launched, according to this manifesto. This group was “independent in name only,” however, it being “a guise under which a group of Communist leaders could put through their aims,” according to manifesto. The 1920 conventions of the Socialist Party of America and the Socialist Party of New York called for a YPSL under the direction of the National Executive Committee of the SPA, which this reorganized New York YPSL pledged to be, adding its pledge to work for the Debs-Stedman ticket in the fall Presidential campaign.

“The Moscow International,” by Morris Hillquit [Sept. 23, 1920] One of the infrequent high profile public pronouncements of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit from the pages of the New York Call. After silently enduring in the name of Left Wing conciliation a barrage of personal attacks dating back more than a year, Hillquit returns fire at the “bombastic ‘manifestos’ of the chairman of the Moscow Executive Committee, G. Zinoviev, which have become so chronic and aggressive that they can no longer be allowed to go unnoticed and unchallenged.” Hillquit notes that “on several other occasions the stern chairman of the Moscow International has nailed me to the cross as an agent of the bourgeoisie” along with Iulii Martov, Victor Chernov, Friedrich Adler, and Ramsay MacDonald. Hillquit states that the “sole specification of offense” against these Social Democratic leaders is that they cannot and do not “lead the struggle for the soviet power of the proletariat.” Hillquit argues that Zinoviev’s “arbitrary and faulty” analysis is a double absurdity, in that it presumes the universality of the soviet model for transformation in the first place, and presumes the immediacy of revolutionary overturn in America and Western Europe in the second place. “American capitalism is not in a condition of collapse, nor are the American workers in a state of revolution. The war and the resultant economic upheavals have weakened the foundations of the capitalist system in the United States, but they have not destroyed them. The capitalist rule is still powerfully entrenched in the whole industrial and political system of the country,” Hillquit declares. “The trouble with the Moscow International is that it is not international, but intensely and narrowly national. It is a purely Russian institution, seeking to impose its rule upon the Socialist movement of the world. Its policy is one of spiritual imperialism. It does not strive to unify all revolutionary working class forces in the general struggle for the abolition of capitalism, leaving them free to choose the methods most suitable in each case, but insists upon working class salvation strictly according to the Koran of the Bolshevik prophets,” Hillquit powerfully asserts.

“The Wall Street Explosion,” by Eugene V. Debs [Sept. 25, 1920] In this short news article, written from his prison cell at Atlanta, Socialist Party Presidential nominee Gene Debs likens the anti-radical hysteria surrounding the Wall Street bombing to the frenzy against radicalism at the time of the assassination of William McKinley in 1901. Debs intimates that the state will delegate a victim to take the fall for the crime: “The Wall Street explosion must be proved the result of a plot and fastened upon some red conspirator. Mr. Palmer, the red expert, and his army of trained spies should have no difficulty in apprehending the culprit and convicting him of his crime. In the meantime, there will be a harvest of fat pickings for a fresh American Legion of sleuths, sneaks, spotters, and spies, as choice a lot as ever infested the land of the Tsar.” The old parties, headed by Cox and Harding, loved nothing more than such a diversion of the attention of the working class from the real crime, exploitation: “With them it is anything to keep the people’s eyes on the jugglers whirling balls while the coal trust, the beef trust, et al., are going through their pockets.” “As long as the industrial machinery that feeds and clothes and shelters the people is the private property of the 2 percent minority of exploiting capitalists, the people will be poor, life will be wretched struggle for existence, the divine in human nature will never be realized, and this world will still be nearer to the jungles than to any real civilization,” Debs declares, noting that only the Socialist Party offered any prospect of changing this bitter reality.

OCTOBER

“Rand School Begins 15th Year as Workers’ Educational Center,” by Marion Lucas Bird [Oct. 10, 1920] A brief historical summary of the Socialist Party’s popular educational institute, the object of 2 years’ worth of harsh repression by the Right Wing New York state legislature and the militaristic Wilson regime in Washington. Bird notes that the Rand School had been preceded by the American Socialist Society, a socialist lyceum bureau established in 1901. The American Socialist Society had envisioned a formal school from the outset, a dream turned into reality in 1906 through an endowment by Carrie Rand. From modest beginnings, 250 students during its first year, the Rand School had grown to the point where over 5,000 people attended its courses and formal lectures in the 1918-19 academic year. An account is given of the concerted attacks by Right Wing mobs and state and federal authorities, dating back to Nov. 25, 1918. After 4 failed attempts at gutting the Rand School, the Lusk Committee had been created, which by means of “clearly illegal” search warrants in which state officials were assisted by former members of the ultra-nationalist American Protective League had seized books and records of the organization. The Rand School had thus far deflected the attack and was preparing for a new academic year. An impressive list of instructors and lecturers for the 1920-21 academic year is included.

“Radicalism in Amerca,” by Morris Hillquit. [October 15, 1920] This article by Socialist Party NEC member Morris Hillquit in the party’s official organ reviews the two new political organizations to emerge in post-war America—the Labor Party (which transformed itself to the Farmer-Labor Party) and the Communist Party. Hillquit states that the Labor Party began from a principled position, seeking fundamental change of capitalist society, but was quick to sacrifice principle for expedience on the campaign trail, destroying its working-class nature through a merger with the “nebulous aggregation of middle-class liberals known as the ‘Committee of 48.’” To this amalgam was added the “purely imaginary forces of the farming community,” resulting in an eclectic mish-mash slated for quick political extinction. As for the Communist Party, Hillquit stated that while it was “desirable” to have “extreme” groups within the Socialist Party as a counterbalance to “any existing tendencies to opportunism,” in the current case the Left Wing’s position was not a “legitimate reaction” since the SPA had taken “the most advanced international socialist position” during and after the war. Instead, it was a “quixotic” attempt to duplicate the Bolshevik Revolution in the United States—and effort which had shattered by “endless internecine strife and successive splits” as soon as the negative program of opposition to the SPA leadership was replaced by the positive task of organization building. As a result, neither of the new political groups had made “any essential contribution” to American radicalism. “The Socialist Party still holds the leadership in radical politics in the United States,” Hillquit notes.

“Eugene V. Debs, Prisoner No. 9653, Interviewed in Prison,” by Norman Hapgood [Oct. 23, 1920] Prison interview by conservative editor Norman Hapgood with Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene Debs, conducted in the visiting room of Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where Debs was housed. Hapgood attempts to provoke Debs by quoting Lenin’s epithet against the British Labour Party as being “a pack of traitors” to the cause of the working class. Debs’ reply is interesting: “’I don’t like the glib use of a word like “traitors,” he said, a little lower than his usual tone, with his eyes for a moment looking away. ‘I realize what Lenin has done. To me he and Trotsky are monumental figures. But I have been puzzled by what he has said recently about other Socialist parties, if he is authentically reported. The British Labour Party saved him. Without that party England would have been fully in the war against him... The British Labour Party did a great thing. It did all that in the circumstances it could do... If for me to say that is to become a traitor, then a traitor I am willing to be.” Debs attributes this attitude of Lenin to “ignorance”: “I don’t believe Lenin and his men around him understand anything about some other countries. They seem actually to believe that England is ready for a revolution like the one in Russia.” Hapgood is won over by the magnetic personality and earnestly held beliefs of Debs. “Nothing embitters him. Injustice, oppression, persecution, savagery doe not embitter him. It is a stirring, an uplifting thing to find a man who has suffered so much and remains so ardent and so pure. I wish we had a Zola to do him justice; to awaken the country until it cared to insist that the persecution of him end,” Hapgood declares.

“Workers Cheer Cause For Which Reed Died: Thousands Gather to Hear of Deeds of Young Revolutionist Who Gave His Life That Labor Might Continue Its Onward March— Throng Suppresses Sobs.” (NY Call) [event of Oct. 25, 1920] News account of one of two memorial services held in New York City in honor of Left Wing journalist and political activist John Reed, dead of typhus in Moscow on Oct. 17, 1920. Main speeches were delivered by Arturo Giovannitti, poet and IWW member, and Max Eastman, editor of The Liberator, for whom Reed wrote extensively. “In the center of the platform was a large crayon drawing of Reed, drawn by Hugo Gellert. In marked contrast to the impressive sadness of a young girl who, draped in black, danced to funereal tones, was Reed’s face, with its flush that indicated only wholesome fun and adventure. The attempts of hundreds of men and women to suppress their sobs, resulting in sudden gasps, was plainly evident through the dance. During it all, Reed’s eyes gleamed,” the news account records.

“Ferguson Opens Defense Case in Anarchy Trial: Charles Ruthenberg, First Witness, Narrates His Life Story Before Judge Weeks...: Prosecutor Rorke Attempts to Label Defendant as Organizer of Communist Left Wing.” (NY Call) [events of Oct. 25, 1920] On October 25, 1920, the defense began to present its case in the trial of C.E. Ruthenberg and I.E. Ferguson for alleged violation of the New York Criminal Anarchy law. This news account from the New York Call indicates that the defense was limited to an extensive exploration of the personal history and views of defendant Ruthenberg on the stand by attorney Ferguson. Ruthenberg noted his previous political career, having run as the Socialist Party’s candidate for Mayor of Cleveland, member of Congress, and Governor of Ohio. The antipathy of the judge to the defendants is clear in one retort made to Ruthenberg’s recollection of having received 27% of the vote for mayor of Cleveland, despite being under indictment for public opposition to conscription: “The fact that 27,000 citizens of Cleveland,” said Judge Weeks, “wanted an ex-convict, who had violated the laws of the United States, to represent them as mayor does not prove anything material to this case.” As for the prosecution, it had objected to Ruthenberg’s testimony that he had a wife and a son in high school of Cleveland as a bid for the jury’s sympathy.

NOVEMBER

“Hillquit Excommunicates the Soviet,” by Max Eastman [Nov. 1920] Lengthy reply to Morris Hillquit’s Sept. 23rd article, “The Moscow International,” from the pages of The Liberator by editor Max Eastman. Eastman adroitly sidesteps HIllquit’s main arguments: (1) that Soviets were not a universal model for socialist transformation but rather were an institution specific to the Russian revolution; (2) that there was no imminent revolutionary upsurge in the offing in America or Western Europe, the proximity of which alone might justify Comintern head Grigorii Zinoviev’s impassioned attack of Hillquit and other Social Democrats as “anti-socialist” for their failure to pretend to lead the workers to the barricades; (3) that the Comintern was in essence a nationalistic Russian construct, an institution which had practiced “spiritual imperialism” by “seeking to impose its rule upon the Socialist movement of the world.” Instead, Eastman allows only that the Comintern had used intemperate language against its Social Democratic opponents (regrettably but understandably in Eastman’s view) and proceeds to argue at considerable length over the question of whether Lenin and the Bolsheviks pushed the slogan “All Power to the Soviets” from the standpoint of principle (Eastman’s view) or crass political expedience (Hillquit’s view).

“Greetings on the Third Anniversary of the Russian Revolution: Read at the Celebration Meeting of Local Cook Co., SPA, Chicago,” by Eugene V. Debs [Nov. 7, 1920]” This short message of revolutionary greetings on the occasion of the 3rd anniversary of the Russian Revolution was released by Socialist Party leader Gene Debs from behind prison bars at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. Debs declares: “The proletarian world and lovers of liberty everywhere are thrilled with joy at the news of the great victory of the Russian people. The triumph of the workers’ cause in Russia is a historic milestone in the progress of the world, and its influence for good has circled the earth, and shall direct the course of the future. The emancipation of Russia and the establishment of the Workers’ Republic is an inspiration to the workers of the world. This people’s government is a bright star in the political heavens, and shall light the way of the world. It is the great hope of the human race, and its example will lead to the emancipation of the workers of the world.”

“Why Are We Not Stronger?,” by Eugene V. Debs. [Nov. 1920] During his 5th and final campaign for the Presidency in 1920, the government’s information blackout on the imprisoned Eugene V. Debs seems to have been abated and he was in periodic contact with some of his comrades in the Socialist Party. Debs even wrote a few columns on current affairs for the party press, as was the case with this article for the November issue of the SPA’s official organ, The Socialist World. Debs asks the question of why there is no strong socialist movement in America after 42 years of concerted effort and points to factionalism as the culprit: “Socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists, and IWWs spend more time and energy fighting each other than they do fighting capitalism. Each faction assumes that it is entirely right and that all others are entirely wrong, a very human way of seeing things, but far better calculated to prevent than to promote the effective organization of the workers.” To avoid a “disasterous if not fatal” blow to the socialist movement from factional bitterness, Debs strongly counsels his readers to show a “more decent, tolerant, and truly revolutionary spirit” towards those with whom they differ. Debs also states in this article that having now seen Zinoviev’s 21 Conditions for admission to the Communist International, unconditional membership in that body is now impossible: “No American party of the workers can subscribe to those conditions and live,” Debs writes.

“The Socialist Party and Moscow: Statement Issued by the NEC in Reply to An Inquiry by the Executive Committee of the Finnish Socialist Federation.” [Nov. 1920] A Minority Resolution initiated on the floor of the 1919 Chicago Emergency Convention and ratified by the membership of the Socialist Party via a referendum vote called for the party to affiliate in an international organization along with the Russian Bolsheviki and the German Sparticans. An application was duly sent to Moscow by National Executive Secretary Otto Branstetter on March 4, 1920. By the time of the SPA’s 1920 Convention, no answer had been given from Moscow. Following the close of the 1920 Convention, membership of the SPA again reaffirmed their desire for affiliation with Moscow via referendum, placing more restrictions upon this allegiance. Shortly thereafter, the content of the “21 Conditions” for affiliation to the Communist International became known, throwing a wrench into the works. This report of the National Execuitve Committee of the SPA is intended to explain this political situation and to answer a request made by the Finnish Socialist Federation to “state clearly the attitude of the Party on the question of affiliation with the Communist International.”

“Another One Caught: Joseph Krieg of St. Louis a Spy.” [Nov. 15, 1920] Documentation of a spy and agent provocateur expelled on Sept. 17, 1920, from Machinists’ Union no. 41 for epying on behalf of the Industrial Service Corporaton. Krieg had joined Local St. Louis, Socialist Party on May 26, 1917 and was said to have been a consistent and vocal supporter of the Left Wing Section during the faction fight of 1919, leaving the SPA at the time of the August 1919 split. This short article was published in the official organ of the Socialist Party of America as part of its ongoing effort to discredit the communist movement, rather than as an indictment of the authorities who wormed the undercover provocateur into the ranks of the radical movement.