The Daily Worker Newspaper, September 20, 1924, Page 5

“The idea becomes power when it pene- trates the masses.” —Karl Marx. SPECIAL MAGAZINE SUPPLEMENT THE DAILY WORKER. SECOND SECTION This magazine supple ment will appear every Saturday in The Daily Worker. SEPTEMBER 20, 1924. ‘ pa a Now, let’s get that thing straight again. What is it for that the Social- ist Party has surrendered to LaFol- lette? It is for the sake of getting a Labor Party formed sometime in the future, isn’t it? This is what we are being told by Debs, Hillquit, Berger, Oneal, etc., etc. to this our reply was that it is nonsense. No one in full possession of all faculties and could seriously believe that a Labor Party will result out of the Gompers-LaFollette-Social- ist outfit. Why? Simply because this combination does not want a Labor Party. They are not interested in it. A Labor Party pursuing an in- depéndent working class policy would constitute a serious menace to the class and group interests of the La- Follette-Gompers combine, Now Comes Wheeler. Now comes Wheeler- himself, vice- presidential candidate on LaFollette’s ticket, and what does he say? Well, he says many things, but the one thing that is of most interest to us at this moment is that he is opposed to the formation of a Labor Party. He does not mince words, either. In fact, he should be congratulated for his frankness in the matter. One would wish that his socialist follow- ers might follow him also in frank- ness and sincerity. For example: Wheeler does not like the word “workers,” particularly industrial workers. To him the mere sound of it is objectionable. His healthy class instinct, the instinct of a petty bourgeois, of one who is iden- tified and associated with the well-to- do middle classes, simply revolts at the idea of a party of workers. Does he conceal this fact? No; he couldn’t very well. His class instincts seem to be stronger than his political intelligence. Thus it happened that when confronted by a Federated Press reporter with the question of whether he would favor a Labor Par- ty, he innocently replied: No, he doesn’t favor any such thing. He is opposed to it. Anything But a Party of Workers. Here is a portion of the interview with Senator Wheeler as reported by the Federated Press. “Are you in favor of a. definite, _ organic third party developing out of this movement?” asked the in- terviewer. “Yes,” replied Wheeler. “Would you like to see it a labor party, say the American Labor party ” “No,” answered Wheeler; “You must remember that laborers con- stitute only a certain proportion of the people. What about the farm- ers?” “Well, of course,” explained the interviewer; “I mean all workers— a party made up of industrial work- ers and farmers.” “Well, there is already a Work- ers Party—a Communist group,” answered Wheeler. “We don’t want to have anything to do with Com- munists. And as for industrial workers—I confess I do not like the use of that term either. There are the Industrial Workers of the World.” Please, note the reasoning of the man whom the Socialist party has seen fit to endorse as its candidate for vice-president. The reporter asks Wheeler-whether he would like to se¢ a Labor Party, gay the American La- bor Party. Wheeler says: No, he does not want that. Why? Because “you must remember (thank you, sen- ator, for the kind reminder) that laborers constitute only a certain pro- portion of the people.” We just wonder how Gompers likes this identification of labor with labor- “Labor” Party - - ers. The old betrayer of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor usually draws a very clear distinction be- tween what he considers labor and the mass of laborers. The latter are to Gompers just as repulsive as to Wheeler, only Gompers does not com- mit the folly of identifying “Labor” with laborers. However, this is beside the point. We are concerned now with the sena- tor, who objects to a Labor Party be- cause laborers—you must remember that—constitute only a certain pro- portion of the people. The implica- tion of this objection would seem to indicate that what the senator is af- ter is a party not of a portion of the people, but of all the people. The reporter understood the nature of the senator’s objection and imme- diately volunteered an explanation. He said: “Well, of course, I mean all workers—a party made up of indus- munist workers suffer hunger and starvation at the hands of “special privilege” and “monopolies” ‘which LaFollette and Wheeler are supposed to be fighting against? And the Farmers. Then what about the farmers? Surely they are entitled. to be con- sidered as part of the people. And the reporter distinctly explained that when he said Labor Party, he meant a party of workers and farmers, ,But the senator did not seem to have heard that. He merely passed it over. But the reporter seems to have been determined to squeeze out of Senator Wheeler some sort of a party that would include the people who work, who produce, who are being ex- ploited. So he proceeds to press the original question, only somewhat dif- ferently worded. The reporter’s ques- tion: “What about a party made up of trial workers and farmers.” In mak-} all people who gain their living by By Alexander Bittelman say that he will not debar from his party a man “because he happens to have money.” Now, now, here the senator said something. He wants for his party the “people,” men who have ideals, and who are they? Not the workers, these are Communists and. with Com- munists we have nothing to do. Not the farmers, about them we keep quiet. We want the men who “hap- pen to have” money. Great stuff. We knew right along that this was the sort of a party that LaFollette and Wheeler are after. But what about Debs, Hillquit and Befg- er? Are they too, after Wheeler's men of “ideals”? Refers to British Labor Party. However, it seems that the senator has sensed that he had begun letting the cat out of the bag. So he pro- ceeds to explain himself: “Take the British Labor Party. Aren’t there many such in it. In MUSSOLINI’S GOVERNMENT IN CONFERENCE | | | ing this explanation the reporter prob- ably thought that a party made up of all industrial workers and farmers Decide to Remain at Their Posts useful work, whether of brain or brawn?” i Now, one would think, the reporter would look all-inclusive enough to sat-|at last got the senator into a corner. isfy the senator as to its being a genu- ine party of the people. But no, you cannot satisfy the sena- tor so easily when it comes to dis- cussing the “people.” He seems to be very anxious that the party which Now, really, can LaFollette’s © vice- president speak against a party “of all people who gain their living by useful work, whether of brain or brawn?” Aren't these the kind of people that LaFollette is supposed to We is in favor of should include every|be fighting for? single member of the people. Alright. How, then, does he propose to: bring this about? As to the workers, the senator is of the opinion that: “Well, there is already a Workers Party, a Commun- ist group. We don’t want to have anything.to do with Communists.” Bravo, senator! That{s good. If you are looking for a party of workers, there is already such a party in the field—the Workers Party, and its can- didates are not LaFollette and Wheel- er, but Foster and Gitlow. Alright, this little statement of the senator suits us perfectly. . But how about a party of the peo- ple? Aren’t the workers, the Com- munists, part of the people? It seems not. Just read what Sena- tor Wheeler himself has to say: “I am less interested in the avo- cation of a man than in his ideals —what he believes in,” answered Wheeler. “I would welcome into the party any man who subscribes to the aims and purposes of the par- ty. I will tell you what I mean. In Connecticut I had placed at my disposal a beautiful, enclosed auto- mobile. And the man who owned it also contributed liberally toward the campaign fund. Are we to de- bar him because he happens to have money—even tho he is sufficiently with us to do these things?” Senator Wheeler is interested in Don’t | the “ideals” of a man more than in its they deserve to be included in the | avocation. senator's party, which is to be, ac- cording to Wheeler's own words, a ideals Mean Money. The senator does not tell us what party of the people? Don’t these Com- {sort of ideals he is after, but he does the British Labor Party in Britain, you will find all possible sorts of people—workers, farmers, school teachers, bankers, manufacturers. They are all of them agreed on one common ground—the aims and pur- poses of the party.” Well, senator, you have not told us the whole truth about the British La- bor Party. It is true that there are in that party bankers and manufac- turers. Even lords. It is also true that MacDonald and his government are trying very hard to transform the Labor Party, which at present is based upon the organized labor move- ment of Great Britain, into a party of bankers, merchants and manufactur- ers, i. e., into a party of Wheeler and LaFollette. It is also true that the Labor government of England is al- ready acting as if it were put into power by a party of bankers and man- ufacturers. But that transformation—from a Labor Party into a capitalist party— which MacDonald seeks so anxiously to achieve—this transformation has not yet been accomplished. The Brit- ish workers, the rank and file of the British trade unions don’t want that. qn other words, what's happening iow in the British Labor Party is that (Continued on Page 2.) 0 eY