Teheran Perspective

Reprinted here are two sec-
tions of a report recently
delivered at New York by
Earl Browder, general sec-
retary, to National Comn-
mittee members of the
Communist Party of the
United Siates.

Ck Stalin and Roose-
yvelt in Teheran expressed the
determination to “work together
in the war and in the peace that
will follow.”

Dealing with the war and the
peace thus in a single sentence

was surely not accidental. it re-

fiected the insuperable difficul-
ties in waging a joint war with-
out having a joint perspective for
the -peace to follow, and the im-
possibility of any perspective for
a long peace unless the war is
jointly fought and jointly won.

_ Both phases of this declaration
“must be taken with equal serious-

ness. We cannot accept one and
reject the other. They stand to-
gether in their very nature, like
Siamese twins who, if severd, are
in the gravest danger of immedi-
ate death.. -

When Churchill, Stalin and
Roosevelt can say they “have
surveyed the problems of the fu-
fure,’ and that they “are sure
{hat our concord will make it an
enduring peace”; when they hold
out a perspective of a future
which will “banish the scourge
and terror of war for many gen-
erations’—then we may be sure
that these three men have found
a path to which, as realists, they
expect to win not only the great
majority of their own people, but
the “overwhelming masses of the
peoples of the world.” They were
not playing with diplomatic
phrases. They were projecting 2
practical policy.

Not so widely appreciated as
the difficultites, there was opera-
five in Tehran a motive for agree-
ment for the post-war period
equally as forceful as the motive
for agreement on the joint war.

Where the over-riding consid-
eration for a joint coalition war
against Hitlerism is the alterna-
tive of a Hitler-dominated world,
which means the extinguishing of
civilization for generations to
come, it must be recognized that
for the coalition peace, atter Hit-
Jerism has been destroyed, there
is the equally strong motive that
without it the alternative is the
spread of civil wars Over vast
areas, culminating finally and in-
evitably in a new world war be-
tween nations. Ao :

VV WAT were the difficulties

in the way of concord?

First. there were the differ-
ences between the socialist and
capitalist sectors of the anti-Hit-
jer coalition. Each side of this
line of demarkation clearly would
pe happier if the rest of the world-
were Shaped more nearly in its
own image. The ruling eireles in
Britain and America have grown
up in an atmosphere of shudder-
ing fear and abhorrence of the

socialist revolution embodied in

the Soviet Union, and everything
even remotely associated in their
minds with it. It was this deep
and unreasoning fear, indeed,
which brought about the Munich
policy that raised Hitler to power,
and brought Britain and Ameri-
ca to the brink of destruction—a
measure of how powerfully it
operated. The Soviet Union, for
its part, had the sharp memory
of universal hostility from the
capitalist world, armed invasions
to overthrow it, long-continued
eonspiracies to undermine it from
within, and finally the Munich
incitement of Hitler to his inva-
sion which finally came in June,
4941. :

These old hostilities and suspi-
cions had to be overcome as the
precondition for the Tehran con-
cord.

British and Ameriean ruling
circles had to be conyinced that
their joint war together with the
Soviet Union against Hitlerism
would not result in the Soviet so-
Cialist system being extended to
Western Europe under the stimu-
lus of the victorious Red Armies.
The men who determine Soviet
policy had to be convinced that
Western capitalist circles had
finally learned that the Soviet
Union is in this world to stay,

and that hostility to it can only —

bring disaster to themselves as
well as the rest of the world.
Upon this basis, both sides could
then come to an agreement_as to
-how all particular problems
should be solved by conference,
conciliation and agreement, with-
out either immediate or ultimate
resort to the arbitrament. of war.

Clearly, when Roosevelt, Stalin
and Churchill registered such
basic agreement in YLehran, they
were registering not alone their
own personal Sconvictions, but
spoke for a growing ‘majority in
their own countries, as well as
the rest of the world.

Gapitalism and socialism have
begun to find the way to. peace-
ful co-existence and collaboration
in the same world. —

Such general agreement neces-
sarily must show itself practi-
cally, not alone in the conduct of
the military struggle, but in be-
ginning to shape the post-war
world which will emerge from it.
Such agreement begins to take its
form in the examples of Italy
and Yugoslavia. It preserves for
the war period the basic prin-
ciple of private property, the

basis of capitalism, and thus re-

lieves the fears of British and
American ruling circles; it frees
the forces of the democratic
peoples? revolution, and sweeps
away all forms of absolutism,
thus relieving the anxiety of So-
viet statesmen of a possible re-
emergence of the old anti-Soviet
forces. It preserves to each na-
tion the ultimate right to de-
termine for itself, within this
framework, the form of govern-
ment and social organizaztion it
desires, without any outside pres-
sure.

Le broad over-all joint pol-
icy in relation to Europe, carries
with it the duty jointly to exert
all influence to minimize and if
possible to eliminate the use of
violent struggle for the settlement
of inner problems, except in the
defeat of the Axis forces and
their Quislings. A broad all-in-
clusive anti-fascist democratic
camp must be established in each
country, within which all rela-
tions are determined and prob-
Jems settled by free discussion,
free political association and uni-
versal suffrage. Such a demo-

cratic camp of necessity must in—
clude the Communists, and this
must be emphasized because it
America it is still disputed even
by many who call themselves “ad-
vaneed liberals.”

An essential part of the whole
program of a peaceful post-war
world, is the achievement of in-
ternational labor unity. The Bri-
tish Trades Union Congress has
taken an initiative to this end,
in the call for an international
congress of labor to be held in
London in June. The overwhelm-
ing majority of labor movements
of the United Nations has ap-
proved this call. Only the leader-
ship of the American Federation
of Labor, through Matthew Woll,
has come out aginst it. Woll and
his friends have been properly
rebuked by the chief spokes-
men of British labor. It is to be
hoped that the intelligent and
patriotic majority of the AFL
leadership, who will certainly re-
ceive the suport of the bulk of
the membership if they speak up,
will foree a change of attitude
upon their dominant reactionary
leaders. The Soviet trade unions
cannot possibly any longer be ex-
cluded from the international la-

American Concept of Party

R ECENTLY we have pub-
lished a pamphlet entitled “A Talk

report of speeches made by my-
self in Detroit and Chicago to
party membership meetings. The
funetion and role therein de-
-seribed for the organization of
Communists, of Marxists, are per-
manent features of any such org-
anization, whatever may be its
name or immediate practical
tasks.

Such an organization we are
sure must be maintained in the
United States, and must be built
ever stronger. We know that for
such an organization would
weaken our country internally
and in its foreign relations. In-
ternally, the organized Marxists
furnish one of- the most stable
points of support and orientation
for the whole
gressive camp; in foreign re-
lations they furnish the nation
essential experience in the neces-
sary policies for dealing with
Communists in other lands, such
as China, Yugoslavia, Italy and
France, where Communist co-
operation is absolutely inescapa-
ble if Europe and Asia are to be
reorganized in a period of rela-
tive peace and order. From this
point of view alone, the practical
conclusion must be drawn that
the continued and growing actiy-
ity and organization of the Com-
munist movement in the United
States is in the interest of the
nation, of the war and of an
orderly world after the war.

There is not the same com-
pelling fundamental reason why
the organization should bear the
name “Communist.” It is con-
ceivable that a situation might
exist in which another name
»culd be practically more ex-
pedient, and in seevral countries
that has been found to be the
ease by the Marxists of such
lands. But it is our considered
judgment that there is nothing
in the situation of the United
States which makes such a change
from the name “Communist” to
something else an expedient one.
Tt might even be detrimental, in
giving an opening to our enemies
to create more confusion in the
country by spreading suspicions
that the new name is camouflage
to cover direly sinister sonspira-
cies. At the same time, the very

democratic-pro- |

bor movement. Woll is attempt-
ing his King Canute role too late
in history for any success. He can
only bring isolation upon the
AFL and not upon the Soviet
trade unions.

Such is the main outline of the
social and political content of the
joint policy upon which is based
the realistic promise of a post-
war world in which Anglo-Soviet-
American cooperation will be con-
tinuing and which will organize
the family of free, peace-loving,
democratic nations of the world.

This is a policy whieh corre-
sponds to the national interest of
all peoples, great and small.
There is no workable alternative
to this policy, only the alterna-
tive of international anarehy.

This is the supreme issue be-
fore the world today.

_ For or against the Declaration
of the Tehran Conference 15 the
issue that separates the sheep

from the goats, that determines

all political alignments from now
on until the policies there enun-
ciated have been fully realized in
war and peace. It is the all-dom-
inating issue in the United States
in the 1944 presidential elections.

name itself has the highest pres-
tige of its history, and is not to
be discarded lightly and without
the most serious necessity.

lt is areund the concept
“Party” rather than of “Commu-
nist” that there exists today in
America the most practical ob-
struction to our co-operative re-
lationships with other democratic
groups.

vs HAT is called the “two

party system’ in the United States
is an old tradition which dom-
inates most American minds. It
recognizes as a “party” only that
particular combination which is
in power and the combination of
the opposition which is an im-
mediate alternative to take power.
Ali lesser political groupings are
contained within the “two major
parties,” which in fact are coali-
tions of many groups which in
most countries would be separate
parties; or if the lesser group
takes the name of “party’, and
becomes one of the so-called
“minor parties,” is is regarded as
a sect which has withdrawn itself
from the practical political life
of the nation.

This “two party system has
been tremendously strengthened
and buttressed against the storms
of constant political changes that
go on within it, by the system of
direct primaries which gives all
voters the opportunity to enroll
under one or other of the two
Major parties and participate in
choosing its candidates, as well as
the party committees and dele-
gates to conventions.

New York is. one of the very
few states in which the election
laws permit coalition of two or
more parties on one list of candi-
dates; and only because of this
fact has the American Labor
Party been able to grow into a
significant factor in-~- practical
polities. In most other ‘states a
similar organization could not
function in the same way at all.

The American working class
shares very largely that this “two
party system” provides adequate
channels for the basic preserya-
tion of democratic rights. How
else are we to understand the
fact that in 1940, not one single
organization, labor or otherwise,
raised a protest against the
high-handed driving of the Com-
munist Party off the ballot by

“Any. realistic dealing Ww

-in their general political az.

ios

EARL BROWDER ©

national and world pre
lems today must begin a
end with an evaluation

the Teheran meeting —
Churchill, Stalin and Roo |
velt, and the auxiliary cv’
ferences of Cairo and M |

CO

terror, intimidation and pr-
sentences? : a
It is not only the Commun
however. that bruise their hr
against the stone wall of
“two party system.” In 1912
in 1924, two major attempt
break the old pattern, madi
Theodore Roosevelt and Roa
M. LaFollette, Sr., made no #
ing changes in the system,
portant as those movements >|

a new period, in which
the suecessful conclusion of
war, all issues will be subo
ated to the supreme aim of ©
izing the promise of. Tehera)
maintaining an orderly v
which will give us some ge
tions of peace.

Obviously, to realize the p
ise of Teheran the broadest
ocratic-progressive united
must be maintained in the U! ¥
States. Equally obviously, - |
Communists will be a part,
a small minority part, of
united front. The Comm }
organization will be in a ||
term allianee with forces
larger than itself.

It follows from this fact,
in the peculiar American ¢ %
of the word, the Gommunists |
not be operating as a “pz &-
that is with their own sep —
candidates in elections, e —
under special circumstances * }
they may be forced to act thr
“Independent candidates.”

All these considerations
to the expediency of a dec.
that the Communist organiz §-
in the United States shoulc =
just its name to correspond f
exactly to the American pol
tradition and its own pra §j
political role. f

Such a decision would be |
instead of being known as §
Communist Party of the U §,
States.” our organization s)
call itself something like “A —
can Communist Political As
tion.” : 4
: Under such a name we wil &
it much easier to explaiz f
true relationship with all
democratic and progr:
gropings which operate th =
the medium, in the main, ¢ Ou
two party system, and tak}
place in free collaborative
their side. ;

Nov our country is a