The Daily Worker Newspaper, June 28, 1924, Page 5

“The idea becomes power when it pene- trates the masses.” —Karl Marx. 'HE convention of June 17 in St. Paul has accomplished its main purpose, It brought together into one national political body most of the really progressive and militant ele- ments in the American labor move- ment. It created the machinery for and assured the carrying out of a national farmer-labor campaign in the elections of 1924. And last, but not least, it drew the line clegrty and un- mistakably, between independent class “aetion of workers and poor farmers on the one hand and petty bourgeois, LaFollette-“progressivism” on the other hand. f Make-up of Convention. It was predominately a convention of what we call class elements. Not Communist, by any means, but repre- sentatives of workers and poor farm- ers who strongly believe in the neces- sity of a farmer-labor party as-against following the leadership of petty bour- geois liberals of the type of LaFollette. Nearly 30 states were represented at the convention. The state delega- tions of the east and thé middle west were composed mainly of representa- tives of labor dérganizations, while those of the northwest, west and south were rather mixed in charac- ter, part of the delegates represent- ing labor and part of them represent- ing farmer organizations. From the point of view of economic make-up the state delegations could be classified into three groups: First, pre- dominantly labor; second, predomi- nantly farmer; and third, mixed. The first groups included the follow- ing states: Connecticut, Illinois, In- diana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mich- igan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Second group: Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. Third group: California, Colorado, |. Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia. It, was quite a representative gath- ering, geographically as well as- eco- nomiecally, and its political physiog- nomy became manifest almost the very first day of the convention. The overwhelming majority of the dele- gates had come to St. Paul to form a party on an independent class basis. A comparatively small incident—the election of a permanent chairman of the convention—gave the first real in- dication as to what direction the winds blew. There were three candidates in the field. Senator Taylor, of Montana, a staunch supporter of the immediate formation of a class party; William Mahoney, of Minneapolis, a follower of LafFollette and author of the idea of “coalition” as against the. forma- tion of a party; and Mr. Putnam, of South Dakota, a favorite son proposi- tion, who seemed to occupy the same position as William Mahoney. Twenty-one states voted solidly for Senstor Taylor, of Montana. Only one state, South Dakota, voted for Mr. Putnam. The remaining states split between Mahoney and ‘Taylor. For instance: California, 7 delegates for Taylor; 2 for Mahoney. Iowa, 5 dele- gates for Taylor; 2 for Mahoney. Kansas split half and half. And Min- nesota (Mahoney's home state), 70 delegates for:Taylor; 63 for Mahoney. The election of Senator’Taylor to the permanent chairmanship .of the _ convention signified the first real vic- tory of the farmer-laborites as against ‘the ‘small group ‘of LaFollette’s followers. Issues and Problems. It was generally agreed, in accord- . ance with the convention call, that it LL SPECIAL MAGAZINE SUPPLEMENT was the purpose of the convention to create a united front of the farmer- labor-progressive elements of the country for the coming presidential elections. ‘ ; This was the convention. formula, so to speak, and as such it’ was accepted by. everyone present... When it came, however, to translating this abstract formula into concrete political and or- ganizational action, there immediately occurred -a. division of.opinion which erystallized itself into three distinct positions. One. That this convention imme- diately proceed to the formation of a national Farmer-Labor party, on the basis of a platform which expresses the class interests of the workers and poor farmers, and with a presidential candidate nominated and controlled by and responsible to the facmer-Labor party. Two. That this convention form no party but merely a coalition campaign THE DAILY WORKER. JUNE 28, 1924. June 17th and After | be nominated by the Farmer-Labor party on its own ticket, on the basis of its own platform, controlled by and responsible to the party, or should the convention place itself at the dis- posal of Senator LaFollette and un- questioningly obey his dictates? Such’ was the political line-up at the convention. It was farmer-laborism versus LaFolletteism. It was political class independence of the workers and poor farmers versus political sub- jection to petty bourgeoise liberalism and “progressivism.” It was an eco- nemic class struggle between the in- torests of the exploited masses and the interests of the well-to-do middle classes. Strategy and Tactics of Various ; Groups. The Workers Party of America, true to its mission as the most advanced section of the American working class, fought at the convention in the inter- ests of the workers and poor farmers DUNCAN McDONALD Candidate for President on Farmer-Labor Party Ticket” committee, and nominate no candi- dates but authorize the above cam- paign committee to endorse the candi- dacy of Senator LaFolletie should the latter take the field on an independent ticket. Three. That this convention create a coalition campaign committee, adopt a platform which would be acceptable to Senator LaFollette and nominate LaFollette for president. Substantially there were only two main divisions on the issues before the convention. What were these issues? . Platform. Should it be a platform frankly expressing the class interests of the workers and poorfarmers, or a middle class “progressive” LaFollette platform? Form of Organization. Should it be a permanent, centralized farmerlabor arty or merely a temporary coalition for the election campaign? Candidates for President and Vice- President. “Should these candidates and against the political ambitions of the well-to-do middle classes. The Workers Party fought for a Farmer- Labor party, for a farmer-labor plat- form and for farmer-labor candidates. ‘he Workers Party did all in its power to expose the petty bourgeois game of Senator * hog’ and to denounce and coweract his attempt to destroy the farmer-labor movement. The Workers Party fought for the political independence of the oppressed masses as against the political leadership and domination over these masses by Aroth -—Big and Small Business alike. Such was the strategy of the Work- ers Party at the June 17 convention. And the tactics employed were of such a nature as to secure for ‘the position of the Workers Party almost the unan- imous support of the entire conven- tion. The Workers Party as such was rep- resented at the convention only by five delegates. In addition to these there were at the convention from 160 SECOND SECTION This maga@ine supple- ment will appear every Saturday in The Daily Worker. ' By Alexander Bittelman to 175 members of the Workers Party elected by bona fide labor and farmer organizations. All in all the Workers Party commanded in St. Paul an indi vitual voting strength of not more than 200. And yet the policies cham- pioned by the Workers Party received the support of at least three-fourths of the delegates, which is about 525 individual votes the total delegation numbering about 700. The strategy and tactics of the op- posing groups were not unified. The clear following of William Mahoney, which was strongly pro-LaFollette but with~a manifest inclination to co-op- erate with the real farmer-laborites and the Workers Party, numbered about 100-125 delegates. It was made up of about one-half of the delega- tion from Minnesota (65-70), the South Dakota delegation, and stray delegates from California, Iowa, and other north- western and western states. William Mahoney’s strategy pursued the following purpose: He wanted the convention to form a coalition cam- paign committee which would be held in readiness to endorse uncondition- ally the candidacy of Senator LaFol- lette if the latter decides to take the field as an independent. As to taetics, William Mahoney pur- sued a simple method. He continually held over the head of the convention the threat of a split in case his propo- sitions are defeated. There was yet a third group made up of the extreme right wing of the Minnesota delegation led by Mr. Starkey, chairman of the St. Paul Labor Assembly, the majority of the Nebraska delegation lead by Mr. Tay- lor of Nebraska (Not to be confused with Senator Taylor of Montana) and a few single delegates from other states, This third group was strongly for LaFollette under all conditions, it was really not farmer-laborite in the true sense of the word, and it was unalter- ably opposed to any co-operation with the Workers Party. The tactics of this group, as soon as the make-up of the convention became apparent, were to manoeuvre for a split, irrespective of the final results of the convention. The two outstanding, “split figures” at the convention were Mr. Starkey of St. Paul, reactionary labor bureaucrat, and Mr. Taylor of Nebraska, a rich farmer. Under these conditions the tactics of the Workers Party had to be of a two-fold nature. First, to secure the support of the majority of the conven- tion for our main ideas of a party, a class platform and class candidates and against the political hegemony of LaFollette. Second, by granting slight concessions to William Mahoney, e. g., the center groups, to prevent, if pos- sible, an alliance between the latter and the extreme right wing led by Taylor of Nebraska and Starkey of St. Paul. Actual Achievements of Convention. We can now safely say that, as far as the convention was concerned, we were completely successful in’ both. We have laid the foundation for a party. The convention declared itself in favor of a Farmer-Labor party and elected a national campaign and or- ganization committee which is charged with the double task of, one, imme- diately proceeding to the building up of state and local organizations of the Farmer-Labor party, and, two, organ- izing and directing the election cam- paign of the presidential candidates of the party. Furthermore, the convention defi- nitely went on record, by accepting the report of the organization commit- tee, in favor of our position that the Farmer-Labor party will support only such candidates as subscribe to the (Continued on page 3)