‘You are on the wrong path’

EAR EDWARD: After a

long silence, which was not
understandable to us and could
not be justified, we have received
two letter from you. The contents
of your letters, as well as some
of your actions in Yugoslavia,
compelled us to reply through
our paper so that our progressive
Yugoslay Canadians would know
where you stand and where we
stand, how we look upon certain
things on which we disagree and
how you look upon them.

A short time ago, rumors spread
here that you had been imprison-
ed in Yugoslavia because of your
support for the resolution of the
Communist Information Bureau
and your stand against the incor-
rect policy of Tito’s group. You
are now convincing us not only
that this is not true, but that you
stand in Tito’s group as the as-
istant minister of foreign trade.

In your letters, as well as in
Borba, we noticed that you not
only declared your support of
‘Tito, but that you are actively
implementing and disseminating
his policy. We want you to know
that we severely condemn your
vactions at a meeting of our re-
patriates in Belgrade, at which
you defended Tito’s group and
called all those who criticize that
group and its incorrect policies
“slanderers.”

We are not sure, but we believe
you sponsored that scandalous af-
fair in Zagreb when a resolution
was adopted against Tim Buck;
leader of the Labor-Progressive
Party... :

.

The tone of your letters to us
is completely uncomradely.  In-
_ stead of dealing with facts, which

possibly were not known to us in

the rift between the Communist

Information Bureau and the Cen-

tral Committee of the Communist

Party of Yugoslavia, you left us

to reach our own conclusion, plac-

ing yourself in the position of a

“know-all,” in the position of a

“supreme master” or “boss” whose

word must be listened to. You

Said that we have passed the “test

of immaturity” on the basis of
_ our refusal to send greetings to

the central committee of the

Yugoslav Communist Party after

the publication of the Comin-

form’s resolution and because we
refused to greet the Fifth Party

Congress, etc. You also claim that

everything would be different if

“you were here. :

We are firmly convinced that if
‘you were here nothing would be
-different because you would not
-attempt to take a different posi-
tion. Even if you wanted to, you
would be unable te change our
‘present position because a “fuehr-
ver” system, under which indivi-

- duals make all decisions, does not
exist among us. Our decisions, as
you know, are made collectively.

If you were to declare your sup-
‘port of Tito’s group here, we are

convinced you would stand alone

-—or almost alone—and that your

position would not be the posi-

tion of our movement. If you
think differently it is an indica-

tion that you are indulging in a

detrimental and anti-Marxist cus-

tom of worshipping individuals
and minimizing the collective.

se
You claim that it seems as if
the whole thing is looked from
the viewpoint of loyalty to Tito
or Stalin; but that this is not cor-
rect; it is a question of whether
oer not the criticism is correct.
- You placed this in an anti-Marx-
ist manner. You placed it as the
reactionaries do, including the
Croatian Voice and Voice of Cana-
dian Serbs. We are surprised that
you forgot that we never speak of
loyalty to an individual in the

labor movement because indivi-
duals could deviate (just like
Tito!), but about loyalty to the
movement as a whole, to an idea,
to socialism. We -prize this loy-
alty above everything else. That
is actually the reason we firmly
stand against Tito’s group which,
to the centrary, demands loy-
alty and blind obedience to an
individual.

As to whether the criticism of’

the Yugoslav leaders is correct or
not, that should have been raised
when the disagreement was made
public, before the Fifth Party
Congress, perhaps even a little
later when all things were not
fully known, before certain events
took place (murder of Arso Jo-
vanovich, ete.) and before the let-
ters of the central committee of
the CPSU (B) were published.
Then there might have been some
doubt about the correctness of the
criticism, but today there isf’t.
.It seems to us that persons who
still carry doubts do so from op-
portunist reasons, wanting to sit
on two chairs, and desiring to be
internationalists while taking
their position with Tito. We are
completely clear on the question
of Tito’s group. That is clear to
everyone who is a Marxist. It is
clear to others, even to reaction
which gives full support to Tito’s
“resistance” against the Soviet
“conquerors.” :

You further claim that a vicious
campaign of slander was organ-
ized against Yugoslavia by the re-
presentatives of the international
working class movement. That is
not true! That, in itself, is a
slander, manufactured by Djilas’
propaganda machine which has
a great poverty of arguments.

It is not a question of a cam-
paign against Yugoslavia and her
people but one of criticism of its
leaders and the policies they pur-
sue. The objective of this criti-
cism is not to inflict damage upon
Yugoslavia from deviating from
the path of socialism, but to save
her people from the consequences
of adventurism to which Tito’s
group is resorting. That was com-
radely assistance to people of
Yugoslavia and even to _ Tito’s
group if it would have taken the
criticism ... ‘ =e

We know very well that you
words are not the product of your
own mind and you did not, as we
might say, “suck them out of your
finger.” They are an expression
of the vicious propaganda spread
in Yugoslavia by Djilas’ machine
on this question. They reflect the
loathesome campaign which Tito-
ites carry on in their own de-
fense.

They reflect their incorrect pol-
icies, claiming that the Commun-
ist Party of Yugoslavia is the
only revolutionary party in the
world, that Titoites are the only
consistent revolutionaries, that
only in Yugoslavia “real” social-

ism is being built and that due,

to this Tito, Kardelj, Djilas and
Rankovie have the right of as-
suming the. leadership of the in-
ternational working class move-
ment. That is conceit and fan-
tasy; it is the source of the mis-
takes and their refusal to recog-
nize them. That is why an un-
friendly position was taken to-
wards the remaining socialist
countries and the leaders of the
working class movement in other
lands.

e
No, comrade Yardas, we don't
believe that the Yugoslay Com-

- munists have gone insane, result-

ing in their support of Tito’s
group. We are ‘firmly convinced
that the majority of the party’s
membership does not approve
that policy, that the majority are
for internationalism, for indivis-

i

ible alliance with the Soviet Un-
ion, for the building of socialism
in close cooperation with socialist
countries and for friendly rela-
tions with the labor movement of
other lands—the only allies our
people have. And, further, we be-
lieve something else, namely, that
the majority of Yugoslay Com-
munists haven’t the opportunity
to assert themselves, haven’t the
opportunity to have the decisive
words within the party because
Rankovic turned against them the
organs of state security.

In your letter we find confirma-
tion of this. You wrote that “all
the real rats, that is men who
were thrown out of the party a
number of times due to One rea-
son or another, like Hebrang, Zu-
jevic, then Balen, Branko and
other smaller rats,” are for the

“resolution of the Cominform.

We do not know who among
the mentioned were expelled from
the party, when and why. We will
not go into that question. But the
situation in Yugoslavia is, never-
theless, critical when Sime Balen
and Branko Vukelich, our well-
known comrades, are called “rats”
and dealt with in that way.

Let us take the case of Vukelich
who along with you, travelled to
Yugoslavia. He was called to
Yugoslavia for consultation and
was to return within a month. But
he didn’t return and no one knew
what happened to him until we
received your letter.

Vukelich, whom you called a

“pat,” is one of the first comrades
who took up arms in 1941 and
participated in the
struggle. You know that there
are very few’ men who believe
in socialism a¥ strongly as Vuke-
lich. He loves new Yugoslavia
above everything else. You know
very well that during his stay in
Canada and the United States he
didn’t allow anyone’ to say a
word against new Yugoslavia,
against Tito and the leadership.
Didn’t he actually shut your
mouth when ycu tried to reveal
a number of mistakes which you

. noticed after you returned from

Yugoslavia?

Vukelich supported* the mea-
sures of the central committee on
the question of the expulsion of
Zujevic and Hebrang because he
wasn't fully informed on the en-
tire situation, It is known to you
—you were with him aboard SS
Radnik—that he was the first to
react to the resolution of the
Cominform. In his first letters
from Yugoslavia he wrote with
great enthusiasm about his. for-
tune in being able to return to
his socialist motherland.

How and why did Vukelich all
of a sudden become a “rat’’? Why
is he dealt with in that way? It
couldn’t be anything else but due
to his conviction that the criticism
is correct. that Tito’s group went
along the wrong path, that it be-
trayed socialism and that it will
ruin the country.

_ That is an example of what the
real Communists, who hold high

liberation

An open letter to

EDWARD YARDAS
by a group of
Yugoslav Canadians

the banners of internationalism,
have to live through.
ee

You have expressed yourself in
an uncomradely fashion, not only
about Vukelich, Balen and other
Communists, but also all those
who don’t support the incorrect
policies of Tito’s group. As far as
you are concerned, all such people
are “opportunists.” The, fact is,
however, that while the oppon-
ents of the policies of the present
Yugoslav leadership suffer in
fighting for socialism, you com-
placently sit on a vice-minister’s
chair 23;

Comrade Yardas, you are on
the wrong path. We comradely
suggest that you think about your
position. It would be damaging if
you should end your political
career in that fashion. We write
this letter to you with the inten-
tion of assisting you. If you con-
tinue to traverse that path you
must know that we will be your
opponents and that we will re-
gard you as we do the entire Tito
group and its incorrect policies.

1

The myth of ‘force and violence!’

By AL RICHMOND
7OU just couldn’t miss the head-
lines, “U.S. NABS RED LEAD-
ERS,” they shrieked.

If you read the stories under-
neath, you learned 12 U.S. Com-
munist leaders had been indicted
on the charge that in reorganiz-
ing the Communist Party in 1945
they entered into a conspiracy to
“overthrow the government by
force and violence.”

“Whats. it “all-7about?*
might have wondered

Really, it’s an old story. Almost
30 years ago, on November 8, 1919,
the New York Tribune carried
the headline: “150 ARRESTED
HERE AS U.S. STARTS ROUND-
UP OF ‘REDS’.” And only a few
months later, the New York
World carried the headline (Janu-
ary 3, 1920): “2000 REDS AR-
RESTED IN 56 CITIES
THROUGHOUT NATION.” ;

Those were the Palmer “red
raids,’ organized by Attorney
General A. Mitchell Palmer. It
was the same story then. Force
and violence. Overthrow’ of the
government. Conspiracy. But Fed-
eral Judge Anderson, of the U.S.
court in Boston, quashed some of
these cases by ruling:\ “There is
no evidence that the Communist
Party is an organization advocat-
ing the overthrow of the govern-
ment of the United States by
force and violence.”

And years later, J. Edgar Hoov-
er, who was in immediate charge
of the raids, was compelled to
confess: “It is, of course, to be
remembered that the activities of
Comunists and other ultra-radi-
cals have not up to the present
time constituted a violation of
federal statutes, and consequent-
ly, the department of justice the-
oretically has no right to inves-
tigate such activities as there has
been no violation of the federal
laws.”

In brief, Hoover confessed it
wasn’t the Communists who vio-

you

lated the law, but the department

*

WILLIAM Z. FOSTER

National chairman of the Com-
munist Party of the United
States.

of justice and its Bureau of In-
vestigation!

But that didn’t stop the depart-
ment of justice from trying again,
and again, for example, in 1939 to
revoke the citizenship of William
Schneiderman, Caiifornia chair-

man of the Communist Party. The:

government contended that in se-
curing citizenship in 1928, Schnei-
derman falsely swore he was at-
tached to the principles of the
U.S. Constitution. The government
argued that since he was a Com-
munist at the time, he then be-
lieved in the overthrow of the

government by force and vio-
lence. ;

That case wound up in the Su-
preme Court, and a decision was
handed down June 21, 1943.

Justice Frank Murphy, writing
the majority opinion, rejected
the contention that a Commun-
ist could not be attached to the
Constitution.

After reviewing essential Com-
munist principles, Murphy con-
cluded: “A tenable conclusion
from the foregoing is that the
party in 1927 desired to achieve
its purpose by peaceful and de-
mocratic means, and as a theor-
etical matter justified the use of
force and violence only as a
method of preventing an attemp-
ted forcible counter-overthrow
once the Party had obtained con- —
trol in a peaceful manner, or as
a method of last resort to enforce
the majority will if at some in-
definite future time because of
peculiar circumstances constitu-
tutional or peaceful channels were
no longer open.”

The same issue—“force and vio-
lence”—arose in a different form
during deportation proceedings
against Harry Bridges, president
of the CIO International Long-
shoremen’s & Warehousemen’s
Union. Once again, on June 18,
1945, the Supreme Court slapped
down the department of justice.
Once again, the ruling was that
the department, and not its in-
tended victim, had flagrantly dis-
regarded the spirit and letter of
the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Murphy, in his concur-
ring opinion, wrote: “Not the
slightest evidence was introduced
to show that . . . the Communist
Party seriously and imminently
threatens to uproot the govern-
ment by force and violence.”

The “red scare” is a well-tried
political formula for manufactur-
ing a“war crisis. Hitler proved
that. Using the anti-communist
hysteria he created to conceal his
real aims, he smashed the power-
ful labor movement and sent the

, German people _ goosestepping

along the road to war and de-
struction. There is war talk now.
And a well-prepared “red hunt”
could provide the necessary force |
to turn the faucet of war from
“cold” to “hot.” And therein lies
the real menace to the peace of
the world.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 17, 1918 — PAGE 4_