As the most important and effective Left voice in the country, the International Socialist Review was often a target of the Socialist Party’s Right Wing. No more so than during William D. Haywood’s successful 1911 run for the National Executive, which saw formal charges brought against the magazine alleging improper influence in Party elections. Here, publisher Charles H. Kerr responds to the slanders in Revolt, voice of the Left in San Francisco.

‘The Charges Against International Socialist Review’ by Charles H. Kerr from Revolt (San Francisco). Vol. 2 No. 35. December 16, 1911.

To the Editor:

Several charges, false on their face to anyone in the least familiar with the facts, have. been repeated so often in the party press that a denial becomes necessary.

These charges are directed against Charles H. Kerr & Company and the International Socialist Review in general, and against William D. Haywood and Frank Bohn in particular.

The attacks have come in three forms. First, an official motion with comment by Robert Hunter of the N.E.C. Second, various letters by Hunter, Hillquit and Spargo, supplemented by editorial paragraphs in the Social Democratic Herald. Third, written and verbal communications to the various party locals from these men and their supporters. These last are, perhaps, the most dangerous because of their vague and indefinite character, which makes any complete answer difficult.

John Spargo, apparently less clever at insinuations than his associates, resorts to a direct and absurd falsehood over his own signature. He charges our publishing house with using the funds of its stockholders to circularize the party locals as well as individuals to bring about the election of Comrades Haywood and Born to the N.E.C. This is simply a lie. We challenge John Spargo to produce a single circular sent from this office to any local or individual to make votes for Haywood and Bohn. Neither has the Review published a line in its pages which can truthfully be described as “electioneering.” Read our December issue from beginning to end, and not even a reference to the party election will be found, apart from the letters of acceptance by Comrades Haywood and Bohn, which were also published in both Socialist dailies.

As for Robert Hunter’s motion that the National Committee be instructed to investigate our publishing house, it need only be said that such an investigation would be welcomed by us, since it would bring forcibly to the attention of party members the importance of the work we are doing in furnishing at the lowest possible figures the standard books and pamphlets explaining the principles of Socialism. His comment, however, contains a guarded insinuation directed against Comrade Haywood, which if not exposed might injure Haywood in the minds of comrades unacquainted with the facts. Hunter intimates that a Local holding a Haywood meeting is required to pay Charles H. Kerr & Company $250 for Review subscriptions, out of which it is alleged that Haywood gets $50. Now the fact is, as all comrades who have managed Haywood meetings know, that we ask the Local to guarantee, not $250, but $100; in other words, the Local takes 500 three-months’ subscriptions at 25c each and we allow the comrades to keep $25 for hall rent. Out of the $100 paid us we pay the cost of filling the 500 subscriptions, we give the Local 200 copies of the Review to be sold at 10c each for the Local’s benefit, we furnish the necessary printed matter for advertising the meeting, and we pay for Haywood’s railroad fare and hotel bills as well as his services. A little figuring will enable any comrade to judge for himself how much of a margin is left for graft, either for Haywood’s benefit or for any of the comrades who are said to hold “fat jobs” in the office of Charles H. Kerr & Company. The whole charge would be too ridiculous to mention but for the fact that our silence might cause certain comrades to misjudge William D. Haywood.

The motive behind these attacks is all plain enough. The reactionary majority of the present N.E.C. find their power and influence slipping away. They are many sizes too small for the position they happen to occupy. They have attempted to run a great revolutionary movement by methods of petty intrigue and egotistic usurpation of power which have long since disgusted a majority of the membership. Behind them they have a minority, only a small fraction of which is composed of place-seekers like themselves, while most of their support comes from loyal comrades whom they have deceived and hope to continue deceiving as before.

They control many channels of communication between party members and are scheming to control more. The International Socialist Review they cannot control and therefore they aim to kill it or discredit it.

They will not succeed. If the Review stood for the personal ambitions and interests of any one man or any little group of men, it would not be formidable enough to arouse these bitter attacks from our tottering dictators. If the Review has any strength, and our enemies think it has, that strength comes from the fact that our aim and our constant endeavor is to voice the thoughts and the will of the workers who make up the essential and vital part of the Socialist movement. And sooner or later, they will find a way to make their will prevail, and the petty politicians will have to make way for men who will carry out the wishes of the workers.

CHARLES H. KERR.

Revolt ‘The Voice Of The Militant Worker’ was a short-lived revolutionary weekly newspaper published by Left Wingers in the Socialist Party in 1911 and 1912 and closely associated with Tom Mooney. The legendary activists and political prisoner Thomas J. Mooney had recently left the I.W.W. and settled in the Bay. He would join with the SP Left in the Bay Area, like Austin Lewis, William McDevitt, Nathan Greist, and Cloudseley Johns to produce The Revolt. The paper ran around 1500 copies weekly, but financial problems ended its run after one year. Mooney was also embroiled in constant legal battles for his role in the Pacific Gas and Electric Strike of the time. The paper epitomizes the revolutionary Left of the SP before World War One with its mix of Marxist orthodoxy, industrial unionism, and counter-cultural attitude. To that it adds some of the best writers in the movement; it deserved a much longer run.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/revolt/v2n25-w34-dec-16-1911-Revolt.pdf