The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 6, 1924, Page 8

Pee RT NUE ARR. a Le aR MIR TS NS aR REE a “discussion in which and facts. (Contined ‘from page 3) wide masses, swinging toward inde- pendent political action? They were attending meetings which, to them, were realizing. their «desires. They were at the LaFollette meetings, It is now as plaincas daylight. Farmer- laborism and: the -mass. sentiment, such as it was, for independent. politi- cal action. had: disappeared, as..snow- ‘flakes in:the. sunt, had» been absorbed even at that hour, by; the petty-bour- geois; middle class moneroent led. by: « LaFollette; rahi bey The. thot is Binet tips that we. mighit. udeieue | have gone on, deluding ourselyes..and poisoning..our movement, .after . the masses..of workers and poor farmers chad gone, some sections, to LaFollette and others to that apostle of “inde- pendent class political action,” Cal Coolidge. Already the facts were pressing for a change in policy by the Workers Party; the Chicago meeting indicated not life for the young farmer-labor movement but only a few stray sparks and flareups of a dying fire. It re- quired only the additional experience of the Cleveland C. P. P. A. conference on July 4. After that it was plain to all who would see, that the sentiment and movement for a _ farmer-labor party had been almost\entirely smoth- ered or absorbed into the LaFollettc movement. What remained of that movement was already organized in the Workers Party or closely allied with it. United Front in. Daily Struggles Led by the Workers Party. The Central Executive Committee of the Workers Party, acting in ac- cordance with the changed political conditions, on July 8 correctly de- clared that we must enter the cam- paign under the banner of the Work- ers Party in order to carry on a truly working-class independent political movement, over, the C. E. C. has, in the election statement and the political thesis now WHO ARE THE COMMUNISTS? By Cc. E. RUTHENBERG. to that stage in the “party : epithets and name-calling is to be, substituted for arguments on the basis of principles In two articles, one by Comrade Foster and ohe by Comrade Cannon, the Marxian group in our party, which wishes to continue to’ base the policies and tactics of our party upon an application of Marxism to the economic and political life of this .country—in which we made our beginning under the influence of Comrade. Pepper—is branded — as “Farmer-Labor Communists.” Throwing stones, when one is liv- ing in a glass house, has always been regarded as a dangerous business, and in this instance it is the glass house ot the. Foster-Cannon group which their stone thrown at the minority of the central executive committee is bringing about their ears. If there is any “Farmer-Labor Communism” in our ‘party it has its lodging in the minds of the members of the Foster- Cannon group. It has not only re- mained in the minds of this group, but it has manifested itself again and again in concrete proposals and in refusal to adopt other proposals. The minority of the central execu- tive committee in this discussion does not have to resort to epithets and name-callings. There is so much ma- terial at hand to show the lack of Communist clarity, their hesitations Since the campaign was | meeting in Chicago on July 2, along | with many other experiences, taught : . over the question of our’ attitude to- “JT seems that we have come quickly, ishgu * Velone the party, further developed the new political situation and logic ally and correctly, according to Com- munist principles, charted the,course for our Workers Party. Both the cam- paign for organization and propaganda for a farmer-labor party must: -be. left behind. Other forms.of: the united front, based upon the daily struggles Strikes, unemployment, « shop. ..com- mittee agitation, general labor, coun- -cils—-must be found ,.qand . employed. it. was. not for us a. principle, ,of ..or- ganization or of the class struggle; it was merely a form of tue. united front which forthe, present,.is. dead. . We ; .want, no,fake labor parties; no delus- nothing which} ory... united. fronts}. breaks down the morale and discipline of our own party; no united front with ourselves; no substitutes for the Workers Party. Instead, unity from below; unity with the workers thru participation in their everyday strug- gles, with the Workers Party as thc center and leader of these struggles. The Chicago farmer-labor meeting showed us quite early, in a startling and concrete form, two political facts of supreme importance: First, that the LaFollette blast had swept what. ever sentiment there was (aside from the Workers Party) for a farmer-labor party into the hopeless middle clas: marsh. Second, that-the malaria) germs of that swamp were alread; beginning to work inside our ow: party, supplanting Gommunist prin ciple with farmer-laborist opportun- ism. The healthy instinct of our party, its sound Communist character at bot tom, showed itself, We threw off this diseased disguise, emerged erect, and made a campaign that established our Communist integrity and strength. We }can now be proud of the revolutionary | banner of the Workers Party. And we can be glad that the farmer-labor us some lessions. FARMER-LABOR ward the farmér-labor party. This first appeared in the central execu- tive committee in Augst, 1923. The Foster-Cannon group was opposed to the organization of the federated: farmer-labor ‘party. It ‘was against the Workers Party following up the! victory which it had won at the’ July 3, 1923, farmer-labor convention. | It was for an all-embracing, All-inclusive farmer-labor party and against the organization of the left wing which had come under the influefice of our party. This attitude, which was based. on the conception that the organi- zation of an all-embracing .farmer- labor party, was a goal in itself and repudiated the viewpoint that. the farmer-labor campaign was a maneu- ver for building, strengthening and establishing the leadership of the Workers Party. In contrast to this the Pepper-Ruthenberg group declar- ed in the August, 1923, thesis that when the interest of the Workers Party come in conflict with the goat of organizing the ‘all-embracing farm- er-labor | party of Foster-Camnon dreams, that we must unhesitatingly sacrifice the farmer-labor party. It is not hard to decide which of these two viewpoints expressed what is includ- ed in the new epithet, “Farmer-Labor Communism.” It was certainly not that of the present minority of. the central executive committee, which in effect declared: If we. can thru this, situation build the Worker: “ and vacillations in relation to the |into a mass Communist party v2. pursuit of truly Bolshevik policy, that name-callings and epithets would only weaken the damning evidence in a recitation of the facts. Attitude Toward the Farmer-Labor Campaign. The first fact, which shows the hypocrisy of the epithet “Farmer- |hundred thousand workers, we will follow the policy which will bring that result and say “to hell with your all-embracing farmer-labor party.” | The Candidacy of LaFollette. Fact number two, which the central executive committee minority submits in answer to the epithet, “Farmer- Labor Communism” is the division ,Labor Communism,” has to do with 4 For the labor party..ig;:not a, fetish; , The Discussion on Party Tasks LESSONS OF THE McDONALD MEETING |", the attitude of the central executive committee. of our party toward the candidacy of LaFollette. This ques- tion first arose in connection with the farmer-labor conference held in St. Paul, Nov.,15, 1923. It was this con- ference which was to issue the call for what later became the June 17 convention. On Noy..13, 1923, there was a meeting of executive council of the central executive committee to outline the policy which was to guide our delegates to the Nov. 15 con- ference. I quote the following from the min- utes of that,meeting: °°" Sti Paul Farmer-Labor “Conference. Comrade ‘Foster’ 'stibmitted the ToHowine “‘whotion : 98° } “So “Phat"at the ‘conference takes up the question of candidates we shall “support ‘the: ocuiigion of La- Follette.” ss. Comrade Ruthenbers- mchesthias the following proposals: (There follow seven proposals to guide our representatives, among) which is point 4): “That we propose that nominations be left to the conven- tion (we are not for LaFollette, but if the gonvention nominates him we will not split on that ac- count).” The Foster motion was defeated by a vote two in favor and nine ‘against and the Ruthenberg motion adopted. I quote now from the minutes of the executive council of Nov. 20: “Motion by Foster: That an ef- fort be made to see that negotia- tions with LaFollette, in regard to his candidacy be carried on by the labor party: group in place of being left to the committee of 48 group. Comrade:.Foster explained, in rela- tion to his motion, that in 1920, when he was a member of the Fitzpatrick farmer-labor party, Fitzpatrick had made the mistake of permitting the committee of 48 to bring forward La-. Follette as a candidate,.in place of the labor group making him their candidate, and this error should not be repeated. I admit, that with Comrade Foster, I made the error, corrected by the Communist International, of being ready to make the third party alliance thru the farmer-labor party and if compelled to, accept the candidacy of LaFollette, but I submit that there is a difference between the accept- ance of such a candidacy after a fight against it had been lost.in order’ not to separate ourselves .from the farmer-labor masses -and the proposal of Comrade Foster that “we shall sup-. port the nomination of LaFollette” in the former-labor conference. It is certainly unnecessary to oak. the question which - attitude repre- sented “Farmer-Labor -Communism!” Loreism. Fact number three has to. .do with Loreism. . The theses of the majority of the central executive committee is very aggressive in its attack. or Lore- ism and the Two and a Half Inter- national tendency. One might wish that the same central executive com- mittee majority has been as aggres- sive in its action against Loreism in’ our party. Unfortunately for our party its agressiveness had developed mere- ly a pre-party convention demonstra: tion before the membership. In practice} it has been the protector of Lore against the efforts of the minority to’ bring the Lore tendency into the light of day and root it out of our party. The question of Loreism ‘was before the central executive committee at its meeting on March 18, 1924. Comrade Lore had written his editorial on the Fifth Anniversary of the Communist In- ternational, in which the policies of the Communist International were]. misrepresented, I. moved at that}. meet’ “That the central executive. committee issue a statement correct- ing Comrade Lore’s editorial on tlie. statements regarding Zinoviev.” Com- rade Pepper amended: “That we censure Comrade Lore and issue a statement.” ‘A sub-committee consisting of Fos- ter, Bittelman and Ruthenberg was elected to~ bring in a statement on the question, The © sub-committee was unable to agree, Comrades Foster and Bittelman bringing in a proposal objected. . to the effect “That the central execu- tive committee objects to the erron- eous statements in regard to the Communist. International and _ in- structs Comrade Lore to write an editorial correcting them.” I stood 8n my original proposal that the cen- tral executive committee statement against Comrade’ -Lore’s editorial’ My motion and that of Comrade Pepper were defeated by the ‘central éxecutive committee majority and the’ Foster-Bittelman proposal adopted,’ ‘the minority votipe against it. Ff Thus'the central executive: coniimit- and from: denunciation bythe central pel the central executive committee to fight against Loreism make more emphatic the above evidence that the central executive committee majority, which for election purposes thunders against Loreism, has been the pro- tector of Loreism in our party. The Controversy in the R. C. P. The .attitude of the Foster-Cannon group toward the controversy in the Russian Communist party last year is fact number four throwing’ some light on the question.in which group in our party this tendency called “Farmer-Labor Communism” has its breeding place. The issue in the Russian Communist Party was whether the party should retain its Old Guard’ Bolshevik leader- ‘ship which had won the revolutionary struggle and maintained the’ victory of the proletarian revolution against all its: enemies. In February, 1924, Comrade Pepper proposed that. he write an. article for the March. Lib- erator endorsing the stand of the Old Guard Bolsheviks. Cemrade Cannon In the central . executive committee. meeting on March 18 endorse the Old Guard in the Russian Communist party.” Comrade Foster submitted the following amendment: “In view of the fact that the contro- versy in the Russian Communist party has been decided by a conference the central executive committee is of the opinion that it is not called upon at this time to take a position on the merits of the controversy. The cen- tral executive committee will print in the party ‘papers ‘all the docuthents bearing“on the debate and willen- courage the members to study them and: to discuss the question in the ‘party papers. The;central executive committee will condemn any,attempt to make a factional issue.-of, the matter. in.the American party.” Some weeks later, in reply to an appeal from the representative of our party in Moscow, that we send a cablegram to the convention of the Russian Communist party endorsing che position of the Old Guard Bolshe- viks, I sent such a cable on my own responsibility, there being no oppor- ‘unity to consult the’ central execu- tive committee. It was not until Comrade Foster’s return from Moscow that the*majority of the éentral ex- ecutive committee consented to the ption of a resolution © officially putting the; party on record for ‘the Old Guard . Bolsheviks. Evidently Comrade, Foster had learned» while there that the Communist. Interna- tional did not look with. favor on parties which refused to take a posi- tion on such a vital question as the controversy in the Russian Commun- ist party. Who Are the Farmer-Labor Communists? — - On the basis of this record we hurl back into the teeth of the Foster- ) try to explain this con- sistent refusal to follow a Bolshevik policy as shown by this record of fact. Bpithets directed against the group in the party which has con- sistently fought against their vacil- lations and comprimises when faced with a question of following a Bol- shevik line, will not cover up these facts from the record, issue a ‘tee saved:Comrade: Lore from censure | executive. committee of. the: Two- | ‘and-Half International »tendency:...ex- ° pressed in :his editorial before.-the | }whole party... (The story... of,.other | efforts made by. the minagity.to,com- » Comrade Pepper moved: “That we Cannon. group the. epithet,. “Farmer- ‘| Communist International and _: his |' Rees Someereesocte ss raat onsen comin Ae ne ee ann ' |