Podcast Sejarah

27 November 1941

27 November 1941


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

27 November 1941

November

1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930
> Disember

Afrika Timur

Pasukan pengawal Itali di Gondar (Ethiopia) menyerah

Amerika Syarikat

Pasukan AS menerima Peringatan Perang, yang menunjukkan bahawa serangan dijangka

Bahagian Depan Timur

Pasukan Jerman dihentikan sembilan belas batu di Moscow



Memberitahu Juri Minneapolis Yang Kami Cari untuk Mengatur & mengagumkan Majoriti Besar dalam Kepentingan Majoriti Besar & rdquo

Dari Militan, Vol. V No. 52, 27 Disember 1941, hlm.3 & ndash5.
Diterjemahkan & ditandakan oleh Einde O & # 8217Callaghan untuk Ensiklopedia Trotskyisme Dalam Talian (ETOL).

Ini adalah ansuran kedua hujah akhir yang cemerlang dari ketua peguam bela dan defendan. Albert Goldman ke juri dalam percubaan Minneapolis & ldquosedition & rdquo. Bahagian awal alamat ini, diterbitkan pada minggu lalu & rsquos Militan, termasuk penolakan konklusif tuduhan persekutuan & tuduhan rsquos bahawa Parti Pekerja Sosialis dan programnya merupakan & ldquoconspirasi untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan dengan kekerasan dan kekerasan. & rdquo Pada tahun-tahun akan datang, ucapan ini akan dibaca dan dikaji sebagai model kedua-dua prinsip mempertahankan hak-hak minoriti politik kelas pekerja, dan sebagai penyataan idea-idea sosialisme Marxian yang bersejarah.

Apa yang Kami Maksud oleh Majoriti

Anderson membaca artikel saya yang saya perkenalkan sebagai bukti sebelum menutup kes pembelaan. Ia diterbitkan dalam Militan pada 29 Mac 1941.

Untuk membuktikan bahawa kami tidak mempercayai majoriti orang, Encik Anderson menunjukkan bahawa dalam artikel itu saya menggunakan istilah & ldquomajority & rdquo tanpa menyebut orang dan pada masa lain saya menggunakan istilah & ldquomajority kelas pekerja. & Rdquo

Apa yang saya maksudkan apabila saya menggunakan frasa & sebahagian besar kelas pekerja? & Rdquo Baca bahagian yang telah saya petik dari Manifesto Komunis. Baca di risalah saya, Apa itu Sosialisme, bahagian di mana saya menyatakan secara khusus bahawa mungkin tidak lebih daripada tiga juta orang yang boleh dianggap kapitalis di Amerika Syarikat. Baca bahagian dalam risalah saya yang mengatakan bahawa kelas pekerja di negara maju industri seperti Amerika Syarikat, adalah majoriti orang. Dan kemudian baca bahagian di mana saya mengatakan bahawa pekerja, walaupun mereka majoriti, mesti mendapat pertolongan kelas menengah, terutama petani, untuk mencapai kemenangan, dan anda akan melihat bahawa saya tidak bermaksud, apa Anderson mengatakan maksud saya, iaitu, majoriti hanya satu kelas, minoriti rakyat.

Pekerja upah perindustrian adalah orang yang memimpin dalam perjuangan menentang sistem kapitalis. Di tempat pertama, mereka secara langsung bertentangan dengan pemilik industri & ndash di kilang keluli besar, kilang automotif, lombong, dll. Di tempat kedua, pekerja upah industri terbiasa bekerjasama & ndash kerjasama adalah kata kunci di bawah sosialisme dan pekerja upah industri di kilang mereka belajar bekerja secara kerjasama. Mereka memahami bahawa perlu dalam keadaan industri moden untuk bekerja sama untuk membina kenderaan atau mesin yang rumit.

Petani, sebaliknya, bekerja di tanahnya sendiri, cenderung bersifat individualistik. Adalah perlu bagi pekerja untuk mendapatkan sokongan para petani. Dalam risalah saya menyatakan bahawa dalam masyarakat sosialis, para petani akhirnya akan menyedari kebaikan pertanian koperasi. Perkara yang ingin saya tekankan ialah setiap kali kita menggunakan ungkapan & ldquothe majoriti & rdquo atau & ldquothe majoriti orang & rdquo atau & ldquothe majoriti kelas pekerja & rdquo kita bermaksud satu dan perkara yang sama & ndash perkara yang sama yang saya baca kepada anda dari Manifesto Komunis:

& ldquoSemua pergerakan sejarah sebelumnya adalah pergerakan minoriti atau demi kepentingan minoriti. Pergerakan proletar adalah gerakan yang sedar diri, bebas dari majoriti besar demi kepentingan majoriti besar. & Rdquo

Apa yang dimaksudkan dengan Mencari Majoriti

Saya yakin bahawa, jika pemerintah dalam kes ini hanya berminat untuk membawa ke mahkamah kemungkinan pelanggar undang-undang, pihaknya akan segera memutuskan pembatalan kes itu setelah mengetahui bahawa Parti Pekerja Sosialis bertujuan untuk mendapatkan majoriti orang untuk menerima ideanya. Sekiranya peguam negara tidak mengetahui kedudukan kami sebelum ini, mereka seharusnya menghubungi Washington untuk meminta kebenaran untuk menolak kes tersebut kerana ungkapan itu majoriti orang menyelesaikan semua persoalan sejauh mana rasa bersalah kita menganjurkan penggulingan pemerintah yang ganas.

Saya menganggap, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, bahawa anda tidak menyangka defendan tidak siuman. Anda mungkin tidak bersetuju dengan kami, anda mungkin menganggap bahawa kami adalah orang Utopia, tetapi saya percaya anda menganggap kami orang yang waras. Hanya orang gila yang mampu memilih dan menginginkan kekerasan. Sekiranya ada individu yang mengatakan bahawa dia mahu penggulingan pemerintah yang ganas, transformasi yang ganas dari sistem kapitalis kepada sistem sosialis, dia termasuk dalam suaka yang tidak siuman.

Dan jika, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh tulisan kita, kita ingin sebilangan besar masyarakat menerima idea kita, mengapa kita harus menganjurkan perubahan yang ganas dari kapitalisme ke sosialisme? Apa maksud peguam bela? Untuk menghasut, mendesak. Kami kemudian akan dihukum dengan mengatakan: Walaupun kita akan mendapat majoriti orang di belakang kita, kita masih mahu menjatuhkan pemerintah dengan kekerasan. Kenyataan bahawa kita mahu sebilangan besar masyarakat menerima idea kita membuktikan bahawa kita mahukan perubahan yang damai.

Saya ingin mengulangi cadangan asas ini kerana sangat penting: Sekiranya kita mahu majoriti orang, seperti yang kita lakukan, menerima idea kita, maka kita mesti memihak kepada pemerintahan yang aman & ldquodestruction & rdquo. Adakah kemusnahan damai terdengar paradoks? Bukan jika anda memahaminya dengan betul dalam arti bahawa ia bermaksud menyingkirkan orang-orang tertentu yang memerintah berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip tertentu, dan menggantinya dengan orang lain yang mewajibkan diri mereka untuk menggunakan prinsip yang berbeza. Apabila peguam kerajaan gagal

menekankan hakikat bahawa Parti Pekerja Sosialis ingin mempunyai majoriti orang di pihaknya, hanya dapat dijelaskan pada hipotesis bahawa Washington dalam kes ini tidak dapat disabitkan tanpa mengira bukti.

Satu-satunya tafsiran yang dapat diterima oleh orang jujur ​​mengenai idea keganasan seperti yang terkandung dalam program kami adalah yang berikut: Kami meramalkan bahawa walaupun setelah sebilangan besar orang akan mendapat idea-idea sosialisme dan akan berusaha mewujudkan sosialisme dengan aman, minoriti, yang diatur oleh kapitalis, akan menentang dengan kekerasan. Terutama itu benar sekarang, kerana timbulnya fasisme.

Pendakwaan Mengganggu Idea Kami

Salah satu faktor yang mesti anda pertimbangkan dan selalu berjaga-jaga, adalah kemungkinan penyelewengan oleh petikan. Seseorang menulis artikel, pesta merumuskan program berdasarkan teori asas. Along datang seorang pendakwa dan mengambil petikan di sini dan hukuman di sana. Kemungkinan penyelewengan sangat besar.

& ldquoTak sangka bahawa saya datang untuk membawa kedamaian di bumi. Aku datang untuk tidak membawa kedamaian, tetapi pedang, dan anak lelaki akan diatur melawan ayah, dan anak perempuan melawan ibu, dan anak perempuan perempuan melawan ibu mertua. & Rdquo Bukankah orang yang menulis kedua ayat ini penyokong keganasan dan kebencian? Sekiranya Tuan Anderson tidak mengetahui bahawa Putera Damai mengucapkan kata-kata ini, dia mungkin akan berusaha untuk mendakwa penulisnya.

Setiap karya sastera yang hebat dapat diputarbelitkan. Alkitab dapat dijadikan buku cabul hanya dengan mengambil petikan tertentu. Ini adalah kaedah yang mesti dijaga oleh juri. Petikan dapat dijumpai dari tulisan Karl Marx, dari program kami, dari Trotsky, dari Lenin, yang akan menunjukkan bahawa kami mahu dan kami menganjurkan revolusi ganas, tetapi itu salah, itu akan menjadi penyimpangan, kerana mengambil program secara keseluruhan, jelas bahawa kita ingin mendapatkan majoriti orang berdasarkan idea kita, dan dari itu kita mesti memperoleh kuasa dengan aman.

Reaksioner Akan Memasukkan Keganasan Terhadap Majoriti

Adakah akan ada perjuangan pada masa majoriti memutuskan untuk mewujudkan sosialisme? Saya katakan sebelum ini bahawa dalam masyarakat ini perjuangan adalah undang-undang yang tidak dapat diubah. Kadang-kadang perjuangan berada di landasan politik, kadang-kadang ia berada di landasan ekonomi. Pekerja bergabung bersama, mewujudkan kesatuan, berusaha untuk mendapatkan kenaikan gaji atau peningkatan keadaan, dan perjuangan menyusul.

Dan kadang-kadang perjuangan itu disertai dengan keganasan. Itu tidak hanya berlaku pada mogok pemandu trak di Minneapolis. Baca sejarah perjuangan buruh di Amerika Syarikat, serangan hebat di Colorado, di selatan Illinois, di Ohio dan di tempat lain, dan anda akan meyakinkan diri anda bahawa keganasan bukanlah sesuatu yang berlaku dalam mogok yang dipimpin oleh golongan Trotskyis. Pada tahun 1877, pada saat sosialis tidak pernah didengar di luar, mungkin, di New York City, ada serangan kereta api yang hebat, dan kekerasan terjadi. Apa yang menyebabkan keganasan itu? Pergolakan sebilangan orang? Tidak. Perjuangan pahit antara pekerja yang dieksploitasi dan majikan yang tamak.

Sayangnya, kita terpaksa mengatakan bahawa kemungkinan besar revolusi sosial akan disertai dengan kekerasan. Oleh itu, adakah kita menyokong keganasan? Tidak. Kami mahukan transformasi yang aman.

Terdapat perang saudara dalam sejarah. Sejarah tidak mengetahui mengenai satu kes di mana kumpulan pemerintah, yang mengawal kekuatan ekonomi dan politik, secara aman menyerahkan kuasa itu kepada majoriti. Mungkin kita telah memasuki masa ketika kelas pemerintah akan menyedari bahawa tidak berguna untuk berjuang dan akan menyerahkan kuasanya tanpa kekerasan. Kami berharap, jadi kami berharap bahawa kelas pemerintah di negara ini, ketika dihadapkan oleh mayoritas yang bertekad untuk mewujudkan tatanan sosial yang baru, akan melihat keberanian untuk memberi dengan aman. Tetapi kita tidak mahu mencipta ilusi itu dan itulah yang kita maksudkan dalam diri kita Pengisytiharan Prinsip apabila kita mengatakan bahawa ia adalah khayalan bahawa sosialisme dapat diperkenalkan melalui kaedah parlimen. Ini hanya bermaksud bahawa kita percaya bahawa setelah kita memperoleh majoriti orang terhadap idea kita, kumpulan pemerintah tidak akan menyerah dengan damai.

Hak Kita Dimenangi oleh Perjuangan

Secara teorinya, kewujudan demokrasi politik memberi peluang untuk mencapai sosialisme secara aman. Tetapi hak demokratik yang kita miliki sekarang tidak diperoleh tanpa perjuangan.

Adakah anda berfikir bahawa setiap orang mempunyai hak untuk memilih pada peringkat awal republik ini? Tidak, ada kelayakan harta tanah. Perjuangan mula menghapuskan kelayakan ini. Pergolakan besar-besaran, demonstrasi besar-besaran digunakan dalam perjuangan itu. Orang dipenjara dalam perjuangan itu, tetapi akhirnya mereka memenangkan undang-undang yang memberikan hak hak pilih kepada setiap orang tanpa kelayakan harta. Tetapi turun ke Selatan dan anda akan mendapati bahawa orang-orang Negro masih tidak mempunyai hak untuk memilih.

Ikut prinsip pendidikan percuma wajib. Adakah anda fikir itu diperoleh tanpa kegelisahan hebat yang berlangsung selama bertahun-tahun dan dekad? Baca sejarah negara kita dan anda akan melihat secara berbeza. Tidak ada, tidak ada nilai yang dimiliki manusia dicapai tanpa pengorbanan, tanpa perjuangan.

Para pendakwa menunjuk kepada literatur kami yang membicarakan demonstrasi besar-besaran dan pergolakan massa. Kami tidak menafikan bahawa kami percaya akan keberkesanan demonstrasi besar-besaran. Para pendakwa mesti lupa bahawa dalam sejarah negara ini banyak perkara telah dimenangi oleh demonstrasi besar-besaran.

Kita sekarang berada dalam masa di mana rakyat harus memiliki demokrasi ekonomi selain demokrasi politik, dan perjuangan perlu dilakukan untuk mencapainya. Ini akan dilancarkan di medan politik, akan dilancarkan dalam mogok kerja terhadap majikan, akan dilancarkan dalam perdebatan, demonstrasi besar-besaran, di ruang sidang, dan orang-orang akan dipenjara.

Kita Akan Mengelakkan Kekerasan

Berdasarkan analisis sejarah dan keadaan sosial mereka, kaum Marxis meramalkan masa depan. Adakah kita akan betul? Tiada siapa yang tahu. Saya berharap, dan saya yakin bahawa semua pembela bersama saya, bahawa ramalan kami dengan merujuk kepada keganasan yang menyertai revolusi sosial tidak akan dipenuhi.

Kami ingin mengambil alih kaedah pengeluaran dengan damai, tetapi kami meramalkan bahawa minoriti akan menggunakan kekerasan untuk mencegah majoriti mencapai transformasi secara damai, dan perlu untuk menghadapi kekerasan minoriti itu.

Kami tidak dapat membuat ramalan dengan tepat. Seorang saintis sosial tidak dapat meramalkan dengan tepatnya seorang saintis fizikal. Namun, apa yang dapat kita katakan sekarang adalah bahawa ketika idea-idea sosialisme semakin meningkat, semakin banyak orang yang yakin bahawa sosialisme adalah satu-satunya jalan keluar yang mungkin, fasis juga akan mendapat kekuatan. Di Jerman, kaum fasis dibiayai oleh industri besar. Kapitalis di negara ini akan melakukan perkara yang sama. Mereka akan membiayai fasis untuk menghancurkan gerakan buruh. Satu-satunya kemungkinan sebenar untuk mengelakkan keganasan adalah bagi pekerja dan petani untuk mengatur dengan kuat sehingga minoriti kapitalis tidak akan berusaha menggunakan kekerasan.

Fakta bahawa kita menyokong pembentukan Parti Buruh adalah petunjuk bahawa kita akan berusaha sebaik mungkin untuk menghabiskan semua kemungkinan untuk perubahan yang damai. Kepada Encik Anderson sokongan kami terhadap Parti Buruh sekiranya ada bukti komplot. Baginya itu bermaksud bahawa kita ingin melihat Parti Buruh supaya orang-orang yang berpura-pura berpartisipasi dalam pilihan raya sementara kita, di belakang tabir, merancang untuk menjatuhkan pemerintah dengan kekerasan. Omong kosong apa!

Mr. Cannon mengatakan pada saksi bahawa, sebagai orang politik yang serius, yang mengharapkan orang ramai menerima idea kita, kita tidak dapat menyembunyikan idea-idea itu. Kita tidak boleh mengatakan atau melakukan satu perkara dan mengharapkan orang ramai dapat membaca fikiran kita dan mengikuti kita dalam melakukan sesuatu yang lain. Menurut Mr Anderson, kami menganjurkan Union Defense Guard untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan dengan kekerasan dan kekerasan. Tetapi dia tidak pernah membuktikan, kerana dia tidak pernah dapat membuktikan, bahawa kita pernah memberitahu perkara itu kepada anggota-anggota Kesatuan Pengawal Pertahanan. Agaknya, kita akan memanggil Pengawal Pertahanan Kesatuan pada suatu pagi dan membongkar rahsia yang mengejutkan kepada mereka bahawa mereka diharapkan dapat menggulingkan pemerintah dengan kekerasan dan kekerasan. Bukankah tidak masuk akal untuk berfikir bahawa kita mengharapkan orang mengikuti kita dalam usaha untuk menjatuhkan pemerintah ketika kita tidak pernah memberitahu mereka bahawa itu adalah tugas mereka?

Tugas kita adalah untuk memberitahu idea-idea kita. Kita tidak mungkin menjadi konspirator, kerana kita ingin mendidik sebahagian besar masyarakat untuk menerima idea kita. Terdapat bahagian di kami Pengisytiharan Prinsip yang secara khusus mengatakan bahawa tugas kita adalah untuk meyakinkan massa bahawa idea dan penyelesaian kita terhadap masalah umat manusia adalah betul dan mustahil untuk menggunakan kekuatan terhadap massa. Kita hanya dapat menggunakan kekuatan pujukan dan tidak ada kekuatan lain.

Melalui Parti Buruh, kami berusaha untuk mendidik masyarakat untuk bertindak secara bebas di bidang politik dan juga menghabiskan semua kemungkinan perubahan yang damai. Kami tidak mendakwa bahawa penubuhan Parti Buruh akan menjamin perubahan yang damai. Kami menentang mencipta khayalan kerana walaupun parti buruh diciptakan, kebarangkalian kapitalis mengatur minoriti untuk mencegah perubahan secara damai tetap sama. Dan kami tidak takut untuk memberitahu orang ramai dengan tepat, dan tidak melanggar undang-undang untuk mengatakannya. Adalah melanggar undang-undang untuk menghasut dan mendesak orang untuk menggulingkan pemerintah dengan kekerasan dan kekerasan, tetapi tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang untuk meramalkan bahawa kekerasan akan digunakan oleh minoritas untuk menggagalkan kehendak majoriti. Dan ini adalah inti persoalan, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan:

Berdasarkan bukti yang anda dapati, hanya berdasarkan analisis sejarah, analisis kekuatan sosial yang beroperasi dalam masyarakat sekarang, kami menyatakan bahawa kemungkinan besar revolusi sosial akan disertai dengan keganasan & keganasan minoriti bertekad untuk menjaga hak-haknya, kuasanya, hak-haknya.

Saya rasa & ndash bahawa saya pasti & ndash bahawa mahkamah akan memberi arahan kepada anda bahawa jika, dengan mempertimbangkan semua bukti dalam kes tersebut, anda menyimpulkan bahawa bukti tersebut dapat juga sesuai dengan tidak bersalah para defendan seperti dengan rasa bersalah pihak defendan , anda berkewajiban untuk menerima hipotesis tidak bersalah. Itulah undang-undang.

Mari kita anggap bahawa setelah mendengar semua bukti dan semua hujah dalam kes ini, dan setelah membaca semua pameran, anda berkata kepada diri sendiri bahawa bukti itu dapat ditafsirkan dengan dua cara: satu, bahawa para defendan menganjurkan penggulingan ganas pemerintah, dan pihak lain yang diramalkan oleh defendan bahawa akan berlaku keganasan. Maka anda mesti menerima hipotesis yang terakhir dan mendapati kami tidak bersalah.

Contoh Sejarah Keganasan oleh Reaksioner

Cannon menunjukkan dalam pemeriksaan silang oleh Schweinhaut beberapa contoh sejarah di mana majoriti memenangkan kekuasaan secara damai, tetapi di mana minoriti yang berkuasa memulakan keganasan dan memulakan revolusi balas. Salah satu contohnya ialah Perang Saudara kita sendiri di mana, setelah Lincoln dipilih oleh rakyat, para budak selatan memulakan pemberontakan. Pemegang hamba enggan melepaskan hak istimewa mereka untuk memiliki budak-budak kecil dan berjuang untuk memperbesar perhambaan. Keganasan bermula, tetapi datang dari Selatan, dari minoriti, dan tidak sampai majoriti orang yang tinggal di Utara mengumpulkan semua kekuatan mereka sehingga mereka dapat menjatuhkan pemberontakan budak-budak & rsquo.

Siapa yang bertanggungjawab atas keganasan itu? Sebilangan kecil pemilik hamba bertekad untuk berpegang pada hak milik mereka terhadap majoriti rakyat.

Saya menganggap ada banyak orang yang, sebelum Perang Saudara, meramalkan bahawa keganasan akan menyertai penghapusan perbudakan. Oleh itu, apakah mereka bertanggungjawab untuk Perang Saudara? Adakah Perang Saudara bukan contoh yang jelas mengenai penambahan kekuasaan secara damai dan penggunaan kekerasan oleh minoriti untuk menggulingkan majoriti?

Di Sepanyol kita mempunyai contoh lain. Kerajaan Loyalis mendapat sokongan sebahagian besar rakyat dan berkuasa kerana sokongan rakyat. Fasis kemudian mengatur minoriti mereka, dan dengan bantuan Jerman dan Itali, memulakan revolusi balas yang ganas dan berjaya mengalahkan majoriti.

Berdasarkan contoh-contoh bersejarah ini dan banyak lagi yang lain, berdasarkan perjuangan masa kini dalam industri, di mana para majikan tidak teragak-agak untuk menggunakan kekerasan untuk menghalang pekerja daripada mengorganisasi kesatuan dan memperbaiki keadaan kerja mereka, kami meramalkan bahawa revolusi sosial, yang bertujuan untuk merampas kekayaan dan kuasa serta hak istimewa minoriti kecil, akan ditentang oleh minoriti itu hingga mati.

Semakin kita menekankan kemungkinan itu, semakin banyak orang memahami kemungkinan itu dan mempersiapkannya, semakin kurang kekerasannya. Tetapi sekiranya keganasan datang, adakah kita akan bertanggungjawab? Adakah pakar cuaca bertanggungjawab meramalkan taufan? Adakah doktor bertanggungjawab ketika dia meramalkan kematian bagi pesakit? Adakah ahli astronomi bertanggungjawab ketika dia meramalkan akan datangnya gerhana? Apakah kita, yang meramalkan ribut sosial yang hebat pada masa revolusi sosial, bertanggung jawab atas keganasan yang mungkin berlaku?

Apakah Situasi Revolusi?

Sebilangan besar telah dibuat oleh penuntutan fakta bahawa dalam tulisan kita muncul pernyataan bahawa kita berniat untuk memanfaatkan situasi revolusi. Apakah keadaan revolusi itu? Satu-satunya saksi pemerintah yang berusaha menjelaskannya, Bartlett, melampaui kedalamannya. Dia mungkin seorang ejen perniagaan kesatuan yang cerdas, tetapi dia hampir tidak mampu menjelaskan masalah teoritis yang berkaitan dengan sosialisme.

Prasyarat untuk situasi revolusioner telah disimpulkan oleh Marxis sebagai berikut: pertama dan paling utama adalah penurunan sistem sosial apabila kekuatan pengeluaran tidak lagi dapat berfungsi dengan berkesan kedua, ketidakupayaan kelas pemerintah untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang dialaminya berhadapan dengan penderitaan massa ketiga yang besar, keinginan dan tekad massa untuk mengubah sistem sosial kelima dan terakhir, kewujudan pihak yang dilatih untuk memahami operasi kekuatan sosial, dapat meramalkan arah gerakan masyarakat , dan bertekad untuk tidak membenarkan minoriti menggagalkan kehendak majoriti.

Mr. Cannon menjelaskan dengan tepat kepada anda bahawa syarat-syarat ini belum ada di Amerika Syarikat. Banyak yang telah dinyatakan di sini oleh pihak pendakwaan bahawa para defendan percaya bahawa perang akan mewujudkan situasi revolusioner. Mungkin begitu, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, tetapi adakah kita bertanggungjawab dalam perang? Dan sekiranya perang menimbulkan situasi revolusioner, dapatkah kita bertanggung jawab atas situasi revolusi? Mungkin pendakwaan & ndash dan oleh pihak pendakwaan saya tidak bermaksud Mr Schweinhaut atau Mr Anderson, tetapi Washington & ndash harus sibuk dengan mengeluarkan undang-undang yang menghalang perang daripada mewujudkan situasi revolusi. Atau mungkin saya mencadangkan bahawa untuk mengelakkan kemungkinan berlakunya situasi revolusi, pemerintahan sekarang tidak akan berperang.

MAHKAMAH: Kami akan berehat petang sekarang.

(PENERIMAAN SELEPAS)

Advokasi Kekerasan & ndash atau Ramalan?

MAHKAMAH: Anda boleh teruskan.

ENCIK. EMAS: Perbezaan antara ramalan dan advokasi pada masa ini harus jelas. Tetapi hal itu sepertinya tidak berkaitan dengan penasihat kerajaan. Mereka memperkenalkan bukti risalah saya Apa itu Sosialisme dan baca petikan daripadanya bermula dengan Halaman 33. Ini adalah risalah yang saya berikan kepada anda pada awal percubaan dan jika anda telah membacanya, anda mungkin melihatnya ditulis dalam bahasa yang sangat sederhana kerana terdiri daripada siri kuliah yang disampaikan kepada pekerja. Dalam keadaan seperti itu, perluasan pemikiran kita yang paling jelas kerana ketika seseorang berbicara dengan pekerja, dia terpaksa mengurangkan ideanya menjadi termudah. Di Halaman 33 saya mengemukakan soalan berikut:

& ldquoApa kaedah yang akan dipaksa oleh pekerja untuk menghancurkan kekuatan politik kapitalis dan mewujudkan kekuatan mereka sendiri? & rdquo

& ldquoDi negara-negara, seperti Jerman dan Itali, di mana fasis telah menghancurkan setiap hak yang pernah dimiliki oleh pekerja, sangat jelas bahawa para pekerja akan terpaksa menggunakan kekerasan untuk menyingkirkan penindas fasis mereka. Tetapi bagaimana dengan Amerika Syarikat, Inggeris atau Perancis? & Rdquo & ndash risalah itu ditulis pada tahun 1938 sebelum pemerintah Vichy mengambil alih & ndash & ldquoDi negara-negara ini pekerja mempunyai hak untuk memilih. Mengapa tidak mungkin mereka memilih majoriti sosialis di Kongres atau di Parlimen dan mewujudkan sosialisme dengan undang-undang? & Rdquo

& ldquoPerubahan yang damai, & rdquo yang saya tulis, & ldquois ideal yang paling dikehendaki. Semua orang, terutamanya sosialis revolusioner, akan menerima idea itu & rdquo & ndash Saya mengatakan perubahan yang damai, saya tidak mengatakan satu soalan yang ganas & ndash & lsquo & lsquothe, bagaimanapun, bukanlah sama ada ia diinginkan tetapi adakah mungkin. Pada buku-buku undang-undang di kebanyakan negeri terdapat & ldquo; sindikalisme & undang-undang rsquo & rdquo & ndash dan Undang-undang Smith, yang menjadi asas dakwaan kedua ini, adalah undang-undang sindikalisme jenayah & ndash & ldquopov memberikan hukuman penjara panjang bagi sesiapa yang menganjurkan penggulingan pemerintah oleh keganasan. Undang-undang tersebut akan sama efektifnya dengan undang-undang terhadap kejadian gempa bumi. Kerana revolusi tidak dapat dihalang oleh undang-undang. Seperti kejang di alam, mereka adalah hasil evolusi kekuatan di luar kekuatan manusia untuk berhenti. & Rdquo

Kemudian inilah bahagian penting, bahagian yang harus menyelesaikan semua keraguan mengenai soalan & ndash

& ldquoDengan dasar sejarah dan teori, kita dibenarkan untuk meramalkan bahawa kelas kapitalis tidak akan menyerahkan kuasa kepada kelas pekerja tanpa perjuangan yang ganas. Sejarah tidak mengetahui contoh penyerahan secara aman dari minoriti yang mengeksploitasi kepada majoriti yang tertindas. Tingkah laku sebenar kelas kapitalis pada masa ini, keganasan yang digunakannya terhadap pekerja ketika mereka melakukan mogok untuk memperbaiki keadaan mereka, mengesahkan pelajaran sejarah, dan membenarkan ramalan bahawa mereka, yang akan kehilangan kekayaan dan kekuatan mereka, akan menggunakan semua bentuk kekerasan terhadap majoriti. & rdquo

Apa tafsiran yang mungkin dapat dilakukan oleh siapa pun yang bebas dari prasangka pada perenggan itu selain daripada yang saya ramalkan, tetapi saya tidak menganjurkan penggunaan kekerasan. Saya membuat kesimpulan:

& ldquoBentuk pemerintahan di Amerika Syarikat secara praktikal menjamin kelas penguasaannya terhadap kehendak majoriti rakyat. Untuk memperkenalkan sosialisme dengan undang-undang akan memerlukan pindaan terhadap Perlembagaan dan untuk itu, diperlukan dua pertiga dari kedua dewan Kongres dan mayoritas dalam tiga perempat dari badan perundangan negara. Tiga belas negara kecil dan mundur dapat menghalang Pindaan Perlembagaan. Sosialis revolusioner semua memihak kepada perubahan yang aman dari perintah masa kini kepada susunan sosialis & rdquo & ndash kita menyukainya, kita menginginkannya, kita menginginkannya, maka bagaimana, saya bertanya, bagaimana kita boleh menganjurkan sebaliknya & ndash & ldquobut dia tidak siuman yang menganggap bahawa berjuta-juta pekerja akan bersetuju untuk kelaparan kerana sebilangan kecil pengeksploitasi akan mengancam, dan sebenarnya akan menggunakan kekerasan terhadap mereka. & rdquo

& ldquoJika ada satu perkara yang akan menghalang kapitalis daripada menggunakan kekerasan, ia akan menjadi organisasi kelas pekerja yang kuat. Semakin besar kekuatan organisasi kelas pekerja, semakin kurang kekerasan yang akan berlaku. & Rdquo

Sekiranya, setelah membaca bahagian risalah ini dan setelah membaca ruangan saya diterbitkan dalam Militan pada 29 Mac 1941, pihak pendakwa masih menegaskan untuk menekan kes ini, semestinya Washington mahukan sabitan tanpa mengira bukti. Mungkin pihak pendakwaan kehilangan bahagian dalam risalah saya dan ketinggalan ruangan yang saya tulis, tetapi mereka tahu mengenai mereka sekarang dan telah mengetahui tentang mereka selama beberapa minggu dan untuk pihak pendakwaan untuk meneruskan kes ini tidak ada artinya selain tekad untuk mendapatkan sabitan tanpa mengira bukti.

Mengapa Kita Sosialis Revolusi

Sekiranya anda mempertimbangkan motif apa yang mendorong para terdakwa memasuki gerakan sosialis, anda dapat menyedari betapa tidak masuk akal untuk menuduh mereka menganjurkan keganasan. Anda telah melihat cukup banyak terdakwa dan cukup mendengar teori mereka untuk meyakinkan anda, saya yakin, bahawa bukan demi kepentingan peribadi para defendan telah menjadi sosialis. Kami berada dalam jumlah kecil dan oleh itu dapat berharap untuk waktu yang lama hanya bertemu dengan kebencian dan ejekan, dengan penganiayaan dan penuntutan. Anda dapat menyedari bahawa kita berada dalam gerakan sosialis kerana kita setia pada idea dan cita-citanya.

Sekiranya ada satu perkara yang mendorong kita untuk bergabung dengan gerakan sosialis, itu adalah kebencian terhadap keganasan yang ada di dalam masyarakat & ndash bukan hanya keganasan fizikal tetapi keganasan rohani dan moral & ndash kekerasan yang mengutuk anak-anak kelaparan atau semi-kelaparan kerana kemiskinan ibu bapa, keganasan yang mengecam anak-anak pergi bekerja jauh sebelum mereka mendapat pendidikan yang mencukupi. Di mana-mana sahaja dalam masyarakat terdapat kekerasan dalam satu jenis atau yang lain, yang berpuncak pada keganasan yang mengerikan yang mengorbankan berjuta-juta manusia di atas mezbah perang. Kekerasan inilah yang kita benci yang mendorong kita ke dalam gerakan yang mempunyai idealnya mewujudkan dunia yang bebas dari keganasan, di mana manusia akan bekerjasama dalam & pengeluaran barang untuk memenuhi keperluan mereka, di mana keamanan dan keamanan akan berlaku.

Sudah tentu, kita bukan pendamai. Kami tidak percaya dengan Ghandi [sic!] bahawa adalah salah bagi tiga ratus juta orang di India untuk menggunakan kekerasan untuk mengusir penindas Inggeris yang mengaku berperang untuk demokrasi. Sama seperti kita membenci keganasan yang ada dalam masyarakat, kita tidak melihat alternatif untuk perlunya menghancurkan keganasan minoriti dengan kekerasan majoriti. Tetapi untuk menuduh kita menginginkan dan menganjurkan keganasan adalah dengan menuduh kita tentang sesuatu yang membangkitkan sifat kita.

Mungkin sesuai untuk menutup bahagian hujah saya ini dengan memetik beberapa orang yang tidak termasuk dalam barisan defendan dan yang sukar dituduh menentang pemerintah.

& rdquoNegara ini, dengan institusinya, adalah milik orang-orang yang menghuninya. Setiap kali mereka menjadi letih dengan pemerintahan yang ada, mereka dapat menggunakan hak perlembagaan mereka untuk mengubahnya, atau hak revolusioner mereka untuk memecah belah atau menggulingkannya. & Rdquo

Tidak ada yang lain selain Abraham Lincoln yang mengatakan ini dalam ucapan sulung pertamanya.

& ldquoSaya mengadakan sedikit revolusi sekarang dan ketika perlu dalam dunia politik seperti ribut dalam fizikal. & rdquo

Orang yang mengucapkan sentimen ini tidak diadili. Itu adalah Thomas Jefferson.

Kedudukan Kita dalam Perang

Adalah masuk akal bahawa, setelah menyelesaikan persoalan utama kes ini, sama ada kita menganjurkan atau meramalkan keganasan, tidak boleh dikatakan lebih banyak lagi. Tetapi anda akan maafkan saya, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, sekiranya saya meneruskan hujah mengenai perkara-perkara yang pada pendapat saya adalah anak syarikat tetapi yang telah ditekankan oleh pihak pendakwa berulang kali.

Selalu ada bahaya bahawa Encik Anderson akan mendakwa bahawa ada sesuatu yang tidak disangkal dan tidak bertentangan dan mungkin akan dikatakan, jika saya tidak membincangkan perkara lain dalam kes ini, bahawa saya takut untuk melakukannya.

Pemerintah mengikut prinsip sederhana. Mula-mula mengandaikan bahawa defendan bersalah bersekongkol untuk menganjurkan penggulingan pemerintah dengan kekerasan dan kekerasan dan kemudian memperkenalkan bukti kedudukan dan dasar kita mengenai pelbagai persoalan untuk membuktikan bahawa semua aktiviti kita berdasarkan satu motif dan itu adalah untuk meneruskan konspirasi. Sekiranya para defendan menentang perang, itu menunjukkan bahawa mereka bersalah melakukan konspirasi pusat sekiranya mereka aktif dalam kesatuan sekerja, itu membuktikan perkara yang sama, dan dengan demikian dengan semua kegiatan para defendan.

Terdapat banyak orang di negara ini yang menentang kemasukan kita ke dalam perang, tetapi kerana mereka bukan anggota Parti Pekerja Sosialis, mereka berhak melakukannya, tetapi kita yang merupakan anggota Parti Pekerja Sosialis tidak mempunyai hak seperti itu.

Tentunya pemerintah tidak perlu menunjukkan bukti yang berkaitan dengan penentangan kita terhadap perang yang kita dengan senang hati akan menetapkan bahawa kita bersalah atas hal itu. Sebenarnya, pemerintah dapat memendekkan kasus ini paling tidak dua minggu jika ia datang kepada kami dan meminta kami untuk menyatakan fakta-fakta tersebut pada banyak pertanyaan yang berusaha keras untuk membuktikannya. We could have stipulated that we oppose the war, that we visited Leon Trotsky and that we sent men to guard him, that we advocate the creation of Workers Defense Guards, etc. These things are found in our principles. Ninety per cent of what the government tried to prove, we would have stipulated to and we could then have gone to the heart of the question as to whether or not we conspired to advocate the overthrow of the government by force. But since the government took all this trouble to prove things that we admit, it is necessary for me to explain those policies and analyze them.

The government accuses us of two things with reference to the war, one, that we oppose it, and two, that we intend to take advantage of a revolutionary situation which we expect the war to create.

While it is true that we hold wars to be inevitable under the capitalist system, it is also true that we would like to avoid them. War is the greatest destructive force in modern society. If this war should last for years, it may well be that all the resources of society will be exhausted and not even a social revolution could solve the problems of mankind. With the exhaustion of all the material and spiritual forces of society, the possibility of creating a new social system is very slim. We would then have to wait until the material and spiritual resources of mankind are resuscitated.

It is our duty to prevent war if possible and to shorten the war if war is declared in spite of our efforts. We shall try to convince the masses that in order to live and in order to permit their children and their children&rsquos children to live, they are under an obligation to end the war and create a socialist order.

Our Anti-War Opinions Are Being Prosecuted

There is at present no law making it a crime to oppose the war. But I am safe in saying that our opposition to the war is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor in explaining this prosecution. The rules of evidence do not permit me, as I indicated before, to go into the motives for the prosecution but I would say that the address of Mr. Anderson yesterday and the emphasis which the prosecution has placed throughout the course of the trial on the party&rsquos position with reference to the war and with reference to our policy on military training, justifies the conclusion that to a large extent it is our opposition to the war that explains this prosecution.

To justify the introduction of our position on the war into evidence, the government contends that our opposition to the entry of the United States into the war, and our statement that we will continue to oppose the war even after the United States declares war, is evidence that we are conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence. A far-fetched and an unreasonable contention! There are pacifists, conscientious objectors and others opposed to the war who are not interested in establishing socialism or overthrowing the government. There are socialists of a type that support the war. Only we revolutionary socialists who oppose the war are prosecuted.

As I indicated, there is no law preventing us from opposing the war. Nor is there a law which prohibits people from saying that they will continue to oppose the war even after war is declared. Of course when war will be declared, the Espionage Act will-come into effect, making certain statements about the war unlawful, but thus far war has not been declared and I am certain that no one could be convicted simply for a statement that he intends to oppose the war even after it will be declared.

Where We Stand on the War

Our reasons for our opposition to the war have been sufficiently clarified by the testimony of the defense and I need not go into detail. We consider the war, on the part of England, of Germany, of France, of Italy, of Japan and of the United States as imperialist in character. We do not hesitate to admit that. We have written and said it thousands of times.

What do we mean by characterizing the war on the part of these countries as imperialist? We mean that the ruling classes which are responsible for the war and which lead the masses into the war are fighting to protect or to acquire markets, colonies, sources of raw material and spheres of influence. Germany wants the colonies that England has. England came upon the scene first, grabbed off most of the rich colonies in the world, and now Germany is trying to get some of these colonies away from England. The United

States has not very many colonies in the strict sense of the word, but it has billions of dollars invested in Latin America and in other parts of the world and it wants markets in China, in the Far East.

One of the government witnesses, Mr. Harris I believe, was a member of the Marine Corps and he testified that he was stationed in China some time ago and Mr. Anderson praised him to the sky for serving his country in China. We do not conceal our belief that the marines in China are not there to protect the interests of the people of the United States but the interests of the Standard Oil Company and other big companies who have investments in China. The capitalists of this country are not interested in the development of China they are interested in China because it furnishes them a market for the sale of their goods and a field for the investment of their capital.

The same thing is true with reference to Latin America. Roosevelt, representing the interests of the American capitalists, is not interested in the welfare of the people of Latin America. The claim that the present administration is interested in fighting for democracy can be disproved by the fact that when Franco was fighting the Loyalist government in Spain, the present administration declared its neutrality. It was not interested in defending democracy so long as there was no threat to the economic interests of the American capitalist class.

Our Attitude Toward Imperialist War

When we state that this is an imperialist war, it follows that we cannot possibly support the administration in its war efforts. You may not agree with us &ndash some of you undoubtedly think that we are wrong &ndash but I hope that in considering the evidence in this case, your opinion as to the correctness or incorrectness of our attitude on the war should not sway in the least your decision.

Mr. Cannon explained in his testimony for the defense that opposition to the war means non-support in a political sense. If any member of our party were a member of Congress, he would not vote for a declaration of war, nor would he vote for the war budget. No matter how much we may antagonize any jury, we must say that because it is the truth.

Certain expressions found in some of the literature introduced by the government have been emphasized by the prosecution, especially the expression, &ldquoTurn imperialist war into civil war&rdquo. This expression is not found in our Pengisytiharan Prinsip. I never used it either in my pamphlet or in any of the columns I wrote for The Militant. But it has been used, and by great socialists, and at times it has been repeated by some of our members. If you should take this expression into consideration, you must take it in connection with our general program which says that we must win over a majority of the people. The expression is correctly interpreted as follows: If, in the midst of the war or at the end of the war, a majority of the people, tired and weary and driven by the agony and suffering to which they will be subjected by the war, will accept our ideas and decide to take power, then if the minority will resist, the result will be that the imperialist war will be turned into a civil war. That is the only correct way to interpret that expression in the light of our Pengisytiharan Prinsip which says that we must win a majority of the people over to our ideas.

We say now and we shall continue to say it as long as we are permitted, that war is a result of the conflict between imperialist nations.

We Predicted This War

The exhibits introduced by the government show that long before the war began we predicted that it would come. Were we then responsible for it when we predicted its coming? Who is responsible for the war? In the last analysis, not even Hitler who fired the first shot, is responsible. As far as we are concerned, the responsibility for this war is primarily upon the system that creates the imperialist rivalries. On the basis of the present system Leagues of Nations, Kellogg Peace Pacts and all the good intentions in the world cannot preserve peace.

Most of you are old enough to remember the statements that were made during the last war, that it was a war for democracy and it was a war to end wars. And the results of the last war are visible to everyone &ndash fascism and now another war. Who was right? Socialists like Lenin who said that without socialist revolutions all over the world , there will be more imperialist wars, or the people who proclaimed that the first World War was the last war? We can predict with absolute certainty the same thing that Lenin predicted in the first World War: if socialism does not come, more wars will follow.

Fascism Must Be Destroyed &ndash How?

The vast majority of the people of this country are terribly afraid of Hitler and justifiably so. I don&rsquot think the isolationists are correct when they say that we do not have to fear an invasion of this country by Hitler. It is not a question of invasion it is a question of imperialist rivalries and Hitler is no doubt the greatest potential enemy of the ruling group in this country and above all he is the greatest potential enemy of the American masses. The destruction of Hitler &ndash and I am using Hitler as a symbol of fascism &ndash is a task which should be undertaken by everyone who values freedom and culture. No nation is sure of liberty so long as fascism exists anywhere in the world.

But the question is: What method should be used in exterminating the fascist danger? We contend that this war is not a war against Hitlerism. I he British ruling class is not hostile to fascism. It can be taken as an elementary proposition that the British ruling class is not interested in preserving democracy.

The people of Great Britain and the people of this country are interested in democracy and want to fight for it, but in our opinion to fight under the leadership of the Churchill government or under the leadership of any other capitalist government is to fight not for democracy but for the financiers and industrialists.

Fascism Is the Product of Decaying Capitalism

Even assuming that Hitler should be defeated, fascism will not be destroyed because fascism is not a product of Hitler but it is a product of a decaying capitalist system. Dislocation of economy is bound to follow this war millions of men will be thrown out of work, misery and suffering will be their lot and in such a situation fascism is bound to flourish. It is in such a situation that the fascist demagogues of Germany succeeded in gaining power. The German people, crushed and humiliated by the Versailles peace, not given a chance to work and live, were thrown into the arms of Hitler. Should capitalism continue to exist after this war, fascism is inevitable unless the masses of people take their fate into their own hands and create a socialist order.

Should war last a long time, the possibility of a peace between the imperialist nations is very great. The British ruling class and the American ruling class can easily come to terms with Hitler if they cannot defeat him, but not so the working masses they must fight Hitler to the very death &ndash especially the socialists who know the fate that awaits them if Hitler is victorious.

The prosecution statement that in a war between the United States and Germany the defendants will prefer a victory of Germany is made either because of complete ignorance of our position or because of a malicious intention to falsify our position. Mr. Anderson said that in his opening statement. At that time, he did not perhaps know our position with reference to this question. Let no one dare, however, to stand up before you now after the exhibits have been introduced and say that we want a Hitler victory.

Our Program to Defeat Fascism

We say that to defeat Hitlerism it is necessary for the masses to assume leadership in that struggle.

What is the fundamental reason for Hitler&rsquos victories? Is it simply because he has been preparing for a longer time? How could he win his victories if a large section of the German people did not support him? To say that the German people, a great and cultured people, willingly accept the violent regime of Hitler is to insult the Germans. They are, however, given no alternative it is either supporting Hitler or suffering a crushing defeat at the hands of the British imperialists and they fear that more than they fear a Hitler victory.

Hitler can come to the German people and say truthfully: The British ruling class has a monopoly on the wealth of this world we ought to have our share of it. When he attacks Churchill and the British ruling class, he is speaking the truth &ndash at least 90 per cent of the time when he talks about his own intentions, he speaks nothing but lies. The same is true of Churchill who tells the truth only when he is attacking Hitler.

The situation would be entirely changed if in England the workers would establish their own socialist government and if in the United States a Workers&rsquo and Farmers&rsquo Government would displace the present capitalist government.

Socialist governments in England and the United States would proclaim to the German people: &ldquoWe have nothing against you all we want is that you join us in creating a cooperative commonwealth throughout the whole world. We have no ambitions against your territory and we shall not do anything to deprive you of your liberty revolt against Hitler and establish your own Socialist government.&rdquo Hitler could not last one week after such an appeal. He would be destroyed by his own people.

This is our solution to the problem of Hitlerism. Unfortunately we are as yet too small a group really to influence the thought of the masses. It is not we who will create difficulties for the ruling class in this country it is the war that will create those difficulties. Let us assume a war which will last five or even more years the cost of living will be going up over 50 per cent of our productive efforts will go for war purposes the people in this country will be suffering as well as the people in England and in Germany and in Italy and we hope that the day will come when all the peoples of the various countries will fraternize and put an end to the conflict which is now being fought to guard the interests of the ruling cliques.

The Class Struggle Will Intensify

It is nonsense to think that a small party like ours can, by its agitation, create dissatisfaction. What will create dissatisfaction is the war and we are not responsible for that.

The class struggle will go on during the war whether we agitate for it or not. We have very little influence in the labor movement but the struggle goes on right now. With the cost of living going up, the workers are bound to strike for higher wages and he is indeed foolish who thinks that, by putting us behind bars, strikes will cease. Neither will a revolutionary situation be prevented by putting us behind bars. It would be necessary to put the whole working class behind bars in order to assure the capitalists the kind of peace that they want. Hitler thinks that by his methods of force he can bring to an end the class struggle and this trial is an indication that the same methods will be used in this country. The spectre of fascism haunts this trial &ndash a mass trial that is characteristic of trials in Italy and in Germany.

I do not mean to say that fascism is here we still have a chance to argue before a jury, but the very fact that a large number of people can be dragged into court because of their ideas and writings is an indication that the monster of fascism is coming ever closer to us.

&ldquoRevolutionary defeatism&rdquo is another expression that the prosecution points to as something terrible to contemplate. I expressly defined that phrase in the column that I referred to before, published in The Militant of March 29, 1941. It simply means that we continue to advocate the class struggle during the war. By that is meant that if the workers have any grievances, they should demand the settlement of those grievances and if no settlement is made, they should go on strike. Will that interfere with the military effort? The responsibility is not that of the workers but of the employers who refuse to settle the grievances.

What Political Opposition Means

In that same article I state that we want to carry on our agitation and gain a majority even during the war. But so long as we have no majority, there is nothing for us to do except to submit to the majority. &ldquoTo submit to the majority&rsquo&rsquo, ladies and gentlemen, that phrase is found several times in my column. Do the prosecutors expect us to change our ideas because there is a war? Do they want us to stop thinking? Yes, we want to convince workers and soldiers that our ideas are correct and until we convince the majority, we are willing to submit to the decisions of the majority. For any government to demand anything more than that means practically introducing fascism.

In that article I expressly state that our party opposes sabotage, opposes any individual or group action which would obstruct the conduct of the war. If the prosecutors were fair and had the power to dismiss this case, they would do so without hesitation the moment their attention was brought to this column. He who would contend, after reading that article, that we are in favor of a victory of Hitler or that we would practice sabotage, does not want to read correctly.

Of course, under Mr. Anderson&rsquos theory, to teach socialism constitutes, in and of itself, sabotage. He stated that, but he does not claim that we would try to sabotage the army by doing something to the rifles or to the planes or cannons so that they could not be used properly. The prosecutors simply claim that, if the soldiers listen to our theories, they will not fight for the government. In other words, socialism is sabotage to the prosecutors regardless of the fact that we say over and over again that so long as we are not in a majority, we can do nothing but what we are told to do.

THE COURT: We will adjourn now.

MORNING SESSION
Friday, November 28, 1941

THE COURT: You may proceed.

ENCIK. GOLDMAN: Once more I beg your indulgence for taking so much of your time. Last night I went through my notes and I cut out enough to shorten my argument by about four hours. If, in your deliberations, someone asks why did not Goldman touch upon this matter and that matter, then the answer is that I had to refrain from discussing many questions because of lack of time.

Yesterday, in discussing the question of whether or not we advocate or predict violence, I forgot to mention the fact that in the majority of instances where violence is mentioned in the exhibits, it refers to defense against the fascists. This is an important point which I ask you to consider in your deliberations.

The Proletarian Military Policy of Our Party

The indictment, charges us with conspiring to create insurrection and disobedience in the armed forces of the United States. It is important to discuss our so-called military policy. The government depends upon that policy, I think, in its attempt to convince you that we are guilty of that section of the indictment.

When the question of compulsory military service was first taken up in Congress and a discussion upon it began in the country, our party felt it necessary to take a position on that question.

As you know, there are people in this country who are pacifists and conscientious objectors who, under no circumstances, would fight in the armed forces or even allow themselves to be drafted for military service, There are many socialists who take a similar stand.

We, on the other hand, considered the situation from its fundamental aspect, namely, that in this epoch when fascism has come upon the scene with its horrible violence, it is futile not to recognize the fact that all important questions will be settled by military means. Not only futile, but extremely dangerous! Of all groups in society, we are most vehemently opposed to war but so long as war exists in the world and so long as there are fascists ready to use violence against the working class, every worker has the duty of training to defend himself. Young people will have to go to war whether they like it or not and since that is the case, we are in favor of having our youth trained in the arts of war. Modern warfare requires great technical skill and he is foolish who does not understand that it is necessary to acquire that skill.

We cannot tell the young generation to oppose military training when we know that it will be dragged into war. And it is on the basis of this fundamental proposition that we say to the young men: Do not resist compulsory military training go into the army and do your best to get the training necessary to defend yourselves against the enemy from without and &ndash we also added &ndash against the enemy from within. In a world where fascism and violence and war dominates the scene, it is necessary for you to accept military training in order to defend yourselves.

Naturally, we would like our members, wherever they are, in the factory or in a union or in the army, to propagate our ideas, but we understand that the army is not a place where one can speak as freely as outside of the army. We don&rsquot like it but we are realistic enough to understand that in the army it is necessary to be cautious. Just as a trade unionist in an open shop must be careful in propagating his ideas for trade unionism, so must a soldier in the army be careful in propagating ideas frowned upon by the generals. In the army, of course, it is far more dangerous to propagate socialism than it is to propagate trade unionism in an open shop. The greatest open shop institution in this country is the United States Army.

Conditions in our army are not so bad now as they were fifty or a hundred years ago. There was a time when it was impossible for a human being who was not brutalized to remain in the army. That has been changed and not without a struggle.

For Equal Rights in the Army

At present we advocate the idea that soldiers in the army should be on terms of equality with the officers. We consider the private soldiers equal in every way, except from the point of view of technical training, to the officers and we insist that they be treated in the same way as officers are treated. We advocate legislation compelling the officers to treat privates with respect and to change the rules which permit officers in charge of a military tribunal to inflict inhuman punishment for some minor infraction of the Military Code.

The government has introduced evidence that we urge the soldiers to kick about their food. I do not know whether there have been complaints about food in the army. If the food is not good, then the soldiers, including members of our party who are drafted, should kick about the food. If the prosecution is interested in preventing such complaints about the food, then let it see to it that the soldiers are provided with good food. Are we in a situation where soldiers must eat rotten food without complaining? That seems to be the theory of the prosecution.

Why Workers Follow Us

Here I want to point out to you the absurdity of the accusation levelled against us to the effect that we send our members into the army in order to kick about food and create insubordination, Do you think we could win any influence in that way, and after all, that is our main aim &ndash to win

people over to our ideas, and thus gain influence. How do you think Vincent Dunne and Farrell Dobbs and Miles Dunne and Carl Skoglund and all the other leaders of Local 544 succeeded in gaining influence over the truck drivers? Simply by kicking?

And certainly not by proclaiming themselves to be Trotskyists. You can readily assume that the 6,000 truck drivers do not follow their leadership because it is composed of Socialist Workers Party members. The vast majority of the truck drivers is composed of Republicans, Democrats and Farmer-Laborites. But these people also voted for Farrell Dobbs and Vincent and Miles Dunne as their union leaders. Kenapa? Because they saw in them men who have served their interests. The truck drivers may not even like the fact that those defendants who are leaders of Local 544 are socialists but still they vote for them because they see in the defendants men who guard the interests of the workers. Our party members in Local 544 did not win influence among the truck drivers because they taught socialism, but because they improved the conditions under which the truck driver&rsquos worked.

The same thing holds with reference to any of our members who may be in the army. They did not gain influence by teaching the abstract doctrine of socialism, but by taking care of the soldiers&rsquo interests. It is true that we take advantage of every opportunity to teach the ideas of socialism. But we feel the socialist ideas will take root, not at present, when the vast majority of the people is satisfied with its conditions, but in the future when the masses will be driven to accept new ideas because of their suffering and privations. Human beings are very slow to change their ideas. The human mind is surrounded by a crust of all the ideas it has absorbed from childhood, and not until events destroy that crust is it ready to accept new ideas. It is because we want to get the confidence of the workers and the soldiers that we defend their immediate interests, and do not merely teach them the abstract doctrine of socialism.

Military Training Under Trade Union Control

We have put forth the idea of military training under trade union control. As Mr. Cannon testified, a training camp was operated in Plattsburg, New York, for the purpose of training businessmen and professional men as officers, and the government furnished the necessary funds. Why not have training camps where the trade unions could train their men both as soldiers and as officers?

In our opinion the great majority of generals and higher officers in the army are hostile to the laboring class. The higher officers are raised and trained in an environment which makes them hostile to the workers. They are not interested in democracy or in fighting for democracy. Have not the events in France confirmed our opinion in that respect? The American and British generals are not any different from the French generals. Who surrendered to Germany? Not the rank and file, but Petain and Weygand and the other generals in command of the French army. Who permitted the Germans to enter Norway? Not the rank and file soldiers, but the fascists in the upper ranks. We say plainly that we do not trust the generals and higher officers to fight for democracy.

Because of that we propose that the trade unions train their own officers &ndash officers in whom the workers can have confidence and whom they can control. And you must remember, when you consider this point, that the trade unions are not under the control of the Socialist Workers Party, but under the control of men who are, from our viewpoint, very conservative, and even reactionary. Still, rather than have officers trained at West Point, we prefer to have them trained under trade union control because the trade unions are organizations of workers. Furthermore, you must remember that our program of military training under trade union control is a legislative program. We want Congress to pass legislation making such training possible by appropriating funds for that purpose.

Of course, as with all other activities and policies of the Socialist Workers Party, our idea of military training under trade union control is evidence, as far as the prosecution is concerned, of a conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. No matter what we do, it is taken by the government as evidence of this conspiracy. If we opposed military training, that would constitute evidence of a conspiracy when we are for military training, that is brought in as evidence of a conspiracy!

Why We Want Workers&rsquo Defense Guards

Another policy of ours which the government introduced as evidence of a conspiracy is our proposal of establishing Workers&rsquo Defense Guards. We have no hesitation to admit that we would like to see the workers create such defense guards. I shall even admit &ndash and let the government make the most of it &ndash that if Workers&rsquo Defense Guards should be created, they would defend the revolution of the majority against the violence of the minority. We shall do our utmost to create Workers&rsquo Defense Guards so that when the majority of the people take power, it will be able to put down any revolt by the minority.

The charge that is levelled against us, you must remember, is that we are conspiring to overthrow and to advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence. The government must first prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and it cannot prove it by introducing evidence that we advise the establishment of Workers&rsquo Defense Guards or a Union Defense Guard. If the jury agrees with me that we do not advocate the use of violence, but predict that the minority will use violence against the majority, then everything else is immaterial. It is perfectly proper for us to propose to workers the idea of creating defense guards to protect them against fascist violence, and mind you, we are not advocating a policy of creating defense guards of our own members. We want the workers to -build these defense guards.

Unfortunately, they have not as yet followed our proposals. The fascist danger is not so evident to the workers as it is to us, and they have not acted in accordance with our proposals. This is a fine example of the idea that it is not agitation that can bring certain things into existence. If conditions, are not ripe for it, then we can talk from now until doomsday and the workers will not follow our advice. There is not a single Workers&rsquo Defense Guard in the United States today.

MR SCHWEINHAUT (Prosecutor): That statement, that there is not a single defense guard in the United States today, is not brought out by the evidence. The contrary has been established. As a matter of fact, in March of this year the Union Defense Guard was in existence in Minneapolis.

ENCIK. GOLDMAN: I still contend on the basis of the evidence that there does not exist a single defense guard in the United States at the present time.

THE COURT: Well, the jury will remember what the evidence was on that particular question.


The Albany News (Albany, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 7, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 27, 1941

Weekly newspaper from Albany, Texas that includes local, state and national news along with advertising.

Penerangan Fizikal

lapan halaman: sakit. page 20 x 13 in. Digitized from 35 mm. mikrofilem.

Maklumat Penciptaan

Creator: Unknown. November 27, 1941.

Konteks

Ini surat khabar is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided by the Old Jail Art Center to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. It has been viewed 149 times. Maklumat lebih lanjut mengenai isu ini dapat dilihat di bawah.

Orang dan organisasi yang berkaitan dengan penciptaan akhbar ini atau kandungannya.

Pencipta

Publishers

Penonton

Lihat Laman Sumber untuk Pendidik kami! Kami telah mengenal pasti perkara ini surat khabar sebagai sumber utama dalam koleksi kami. Penyelidik, pendidik, dan pelajar mungkin menganggap isu ini berguna dalam karya mereka.

Disediakan oleh

The Old Jail Art Center

The Old Jail Art Center (OJAC) first opened in 1980 in the first permanent jail built in Shackelford County, comprised of four small galleries. It functions as a primary cultural resource for the region, providing visual art, performing art, and local history resources for residents and visitors alike, and fostering memorable experiences.


The Irish Army and the Emergency

Above: The brown denim uniform of the Local Defence Force (LDF).

This September marks the 80th anniversary of the start of the Second World War and the passing of the Emergency Powers Act 1939 by Dáil Éireann. Between 1939 and 1945 Ireland remained neutral, although many Irish men and women joined the British Army. The Irish Army expanded to several times its pre-war size, and trained to repel any attack. Many Irishmen joined the army in 1940 and 1941, when invasion seemed a strong possibility, allowing the forces to grow to nearly 40,000 men by early 1942, creating two divisions. Naturally the army, which had become very small during the 1930s, was underequipped and relied on the British and American governments to provide equipment when they saw fit. Reflecting the lack of equipment, grenades and land-mines were made by army engineers, including one called the ‘de Valera land mine’, believed to have been designed by Dev’s son, Major Vivion de Valera, who served in the army during the Emergency.

A Local Security Force (LSF), under the control of An Garda Síochána, was formed on 24 May 1940 after the invasion of France. In January 1941 most of the force was transferred to army control to become the Local Defence Force (LDF). Their members were equipped with American Springfield rifles, wore brown denim uniforms and were trained to defend their local areas in the event of invasion, reaching a peak of over 100,000 volunteers in 1942.

At the outbreak of the war a coast-watching service was established, making use of 88 concrete lookout posts manned by c. 700 soldiers (see p. 51). Watchers were trained to note the distance and direction of all ships and airplanes, and to report these observations by telephone (often via specially constructed lines) to headquarters in Dublin. At the same time the Irish government decided to establish a small naval force to patrol Irish waters. Based at the old navy yard at Haulbowline in Cobh, the Marine Service comprised two fisheries protection vessels and six motor torpedo boats unsuited to ocean patrols. A navy reserve called the Maritime Inscription was formed at Dublin Port to assist the port authorities with port control and examination services. Other units were established in Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway.

Above: The German-style helmet of the Irish Army at the outbreak of war in 1939. Despite the fact that it was manufactured in England by Vickers, British newsreel insinuations that it reflected pro-Nazi sympathies led to its replacement in 1940 by British-style ‘tin hats’.

Despite the policy of neutrality, the Irish government quietly aided the Allied cause in a number of ways:

  • by allowing Allied aircraft patrolling the North Atlantic to fly over Irish airspace in Donegal to reach their bases in Northern Ireland
  • by releasing (after 1942) Allied airmen and sailors who strayed into the Free State, rather than interning them for the rest of the war
  • by working closely with British and American intelligence to monitor and control German espionage activity
  • by building a new coastal fort with British assistance, Fort Shannon, to defend Foynes, Co. Limerick, then a base for seaplanes.

The government also proved sensitive to British propaganda. After the Civil War the Irish Army adopted a German-style helmet (manufactured by Vickers in England), as it was the best helmet then available. British newsreels used the similar appearance of Irish and German soldiers during the Emergency to suggest that the Irish government sympathised with the Nazis, a factor in the Irish Army’s switch to British-style ‘tin hats’ in 1940.


Perkara Liberty: Forum untuk Perbincangan Idea Mengenai Liberty Kebebasan dan Kebajikan: Frank Meyer & Fusionism (Jun 2021)

Selamat datang ke edisi Jun 2021, Liberty Matters. Bulan ini Stephanie Slade, penyunting pengurusan di majalah Reason, telah menulis karangan utama kami mengenai Frank Meyer. Liberty Fund menerbitkan buku Meyer yang paling banyak dikutip In Defense of Freedom dan karangan yang berkaitan yang juga merangkumi sebilangan esei Meyer yang lebih terkenal. Meyer adalah salah seorang pengasas, bersama dengan William F. Buckley, dari National Re.


Graduate

The Ph.D. program in history trains students to become both skilled scholars and conscientious teachers. Throughout the program, students work with advisors and other faculty members as they engage in coursework, prepare for and take the general exam, work as teaching fellows, and research and write the dissertation. It generally takes students six or seven years to finish their doctoral degree. Most graduates have pursued academic careers at universities and colleges in the United States and abroad, while others have gone on to successful careers in law and in government.

Students enrolled in the Master of Liberal Arts program in History will examine the past through a variety of critical approaches while engaging in deep investigation of how evidence and historical narratives have developed over time.


Bab 16

The Thirteenth Amendment officially and permanently banned the institution of slavery in the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation had freed only those enslaved in rebellious states, leaving many enslaved people—most notably, those in the border states—in bondage furthermore, it did not alter or prohibit the institution of slavery in general.

The Fifteenth Amendment granted the vote to all Black men, giving formerly enslaved people and free Black people greater political power than they had ever had in the United States. Black people in former Confederate states elected a handful of Black U.S. congressmen and a great many Black local and state leaders who instituted ambitious reform and modernization projects in the South. However, the Fifteenth Amendment continued to exclude women from voting. Women continued to fight for suffrage through the NWSA and AWSA.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book is Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and you must attribute OpenStax.

    If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:

  • Use the information below to generate a citation. We recommend using a citation tool such as this one.
    • Authors: P. Scott Corbett, Volker Janssen, John M. Lund, Todd Pfannestiel, Sylvie Waskiewicz, Paul Vickery
    • Publisher/website: OpenStax
    • Book title: U.S. History
    • Publication date: Dec 30, 2014
    • Location: Houston, Texas
    • Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/1-introduction
    • Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/chapter-16

    © Jan 11, 2021 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 license. The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.


    About ACM CCS

    The ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) is the flagship annual conference of the Special Interest Group on Security, Audit and Control (SIGSAC) of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). The conference brings together information security researchers, practitioners, developers, and users from all over the world to explore cutting-edge ideas and results.

    CCS will follow the ACM Policy Against Harassment at ACM Activities . Please familiarize yourself with the ACM Policy Against Harassment dan guide to Reporting Unacceptable Behavior .


    BLACK FRIDAY IS ABOUT SHOPPING, YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT!

    NO PURCHASE NECESSARY

    Buy Nothing Day is where you challenge yourself, your family and friends to switch off from shopping and tune into life. The rules are simple, for 24 hours you will detox from buying stuff - anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending! Instead of shopping people around the world will take part in a 24 hour moratorium on consuming, either as a personal experiment or public statement.

    Can you resist the urge to splurge? Or will Black Friday bully you into buying things you probably don’t need. Join the global network in over 60 countries who will be celebrating Buy Nothing Day and if Black Friday does tempt you to go shopping - just remember to DO NOTHING .

    ESCAPE THE SHOPOCALYPSE

    The anarchy that ensues on Black Friday has now become an absurd dystopian phenomenon. The big retailers use the event to spin out highly competitive one day offers, which often creates a rabid free for all. Black Friday is creating a brand of shoppers who will trample and fight each other to get their hands on next years landfill.

    Black Friday sucks the life out of small businesses, who cannot compete against this ruthless price cutting. If you really need to shop on Buy Nothing Day, ignore the big retailers with their aisles of organised landfill and make commitment to support local independent shops and businesses.

    PARTICIPATE BY NOT PARTICIPATING

    Taking part in Buy Nothing Day is simple - it can be anything from staying at home with a good book to organising a free concert. It is entirely up to you how you participate and don't forget to share your event using #BuyNothingDay .

    SHOP LESS LIVE MORE

    Of course, Buy Nothing Day isn't about changing your lifestyle for just one day - we want it to be a lasting relationship or maybe a life changing experience! We want people to make a commitment to shopping less and living more.


    Analyst Price Targets (27)

    Sector(s) : Healthcare
    Industry : Healthcare Plans
    Full Time Employees : 213,000

    CVS Health Corporation provides health services in the United States. The company's Pharmacy Services segment offers pharmacy benefit management solutions, including plan design and administration, formulary management, retail pharmacy network management, mail order pharmacy, specialty pharmacy and infusion, clinical, and disease and medical spend management services. It serves employers, insurance companies, unions, government employee groups, health plans, prescription drug plans, Medicaid managed care plans, plans offered on public health insurance and private health insurance exchanges, other sponsors of health benefit plans, and individuals. This segment operates retail specialty pharmacy stores and specialty mail order, mail order dispensing, and compounding pharmacies, as well as branches for infusion and enteral nutrition services. Its Retail/LTC segment sells prescription and over-the-counter drugs, consumer health and beauty products, and personal care products and provides health care services through its MinuteClinic walk-in medical clinics. This segment also distributes prescription drugs and provides related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. As of December 31, 2020, it operated approximately 9,900 retail locations and 1,100 MinuteClinic locations, as well as online retail pharmacy websites, LTC pharmacies, and onsite pharmacies. The company's Health Care Benefits segment offers traditional, voluntary, and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services. It serves employer groups, individuals, college students, part-time and hourly workers, health plans, health care providers, governmental units, government-sponsored plans, labor groups, and expatriates. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.



Komen:

  1. Wadley

    It is a pity, that now I can not express - I am late for a meeting. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion.

  2. Janneth

    Anda dengan cepat menjawab ...

  3. Kazihn

    Alasan, bahawa saya campur tangan, tetapi, pada pendapat saya, tema ini tidak begitu sebenarnya.

  4. Morisar

    Anda tidak seperti pakar :)

  5. Andrea

    dan satu lagi varian ialah?



Tulis mesej