The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 8, 1924, Page 3

4, vonday, December 8, 1924 Di Lovestone Quotes Mahoney By JAMES P. CANNON. The more the party controversy is brought out into the open, and the} more the minority is compelled to de- fend its position, the more does the shallow opportunism of both the mi- nority position and of its advocates become revealed. In my previous ar- ticle, I showed how the false policy of the minority had already led them, in seven concrete instances, to a non- Communist attitude toward our elec tion campaign. I can now add another example, more clear, more obvious, and more damning than the others. The latest and worst example is given to the party by Comrade Lovestone in his ar- ticle in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 8, This is only natural, since the poli- ey of the minority is the policy of Lovestone, and is the logical outcome of his opposition to the Workers Party entering the election campaign under its own name in the July. meeting of the C. B. C. “If you give a finger to opportun- igm,” said Zinoviev, in speaking of Serrati, “you will soon have to give} your whole hand.” Comrade Love- stone has not given his whole hand as yet. But, in his article in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 3, he adds another finger to the one he gave last July. At the rate he is traveling to the right, and if the more stable elements of the minority do not call him to or- der, we may expect that he will soon give bis whole hand—and his head, too. From the very beginning of the dis- cussion, the C. BH. C., placing itself On the ground of reality, has put one insistent question to the advocates of “an intensified campaign for a class farmer-labor party.” That question is: Where is the sentiment amongst the working masses for this so-called “class” party? Time and again we have begged them to tell us in what ~ trade unions, in what cities, states or localities this sentiment exists and how it is manifesting itself. Up till Dec. 3, the minority made no answer. Oh, yes, Comrade Ruthen- berg answered. His answer was 2 formula. He told us, in effect: “The contradictions of capitalism will in- tensify the class antagonisms. The capitalist state power will be used against the workers and the latter will be driven to independent political ac- tion. Therefore, we must build a ‘class farmer-labor party.’ This is a fundamental of Marxism. Please do not press the question any further.” , But it soon became evident that the sophmoric essays of Comrade Ruthen- berg were not. satisfying the party. The party wanted facts, and not mere- ly formulas. In the ranks of the mi- nority itself voices began to be rais- ed: “Give us some facts about the ac- tual sentiment for a ‘class farmer-la- bor party’ so that we can at least answer the merciless attacks of those comrades who say there is no mass sentiment for it.” Comrade Lovestone Takes the Stand and Introduces Mahoney's Edi- torial as “Exhibit A.” At this juncture Comrade Love- stone stepped into the breach. The question of facts was no problem for him, for is he not an expert “research worker” and “fact-finder” as well as @n expert and experienced witness? He took the witness stand, so to speak, in his article of Dec. 3, to “gtve evi- dence.” He had “run down” the elu- sive sentiment for a “class farmer-la- bor party,” captured it, and brought it into court with him. “What is this evidence? First and foremost, it is a quotation from the ‘Minnesota Trade Union Advocate, edit- ed by William Mahoney. Think of it! After all our experience with this renegade and faker, after his treach- e@rous performances at the St. Paul convention and since, Comrade Love- stone still wants us to put faith in him and rely on him as an ally in the fight for a “class” movement. Basing his conclusions solely on the quotations from Mahoney, Comrade Lovestone says: “It is only natural that the first tangible crystallization of disillusionment with LaFolletteism should manifest itself in Minnesota It is only a matter of time when similar manifestations will be ' displayed in other sections of the farmer-labor movement.” Let us examine the black record of ‘this “ally” whom Comrade Lovestone has found. Let us see how much the party can depend on this “first tan- gible disillusionment with LaFollette- ism.” ‘The whole story cannot be told here. Mahoney's treachery multiples daily and only a resident of St. Paul can keep track of it. But we all—includ- ing Comrade Lovestone—know enough facts to take his measure and estimate him properly. Let me set down here a few outstanding facts about Ma- honey which are known to us: 1. On the very day that Comrade ‘Lovestone’s article appeared in the DAILY WORKER, and on the day fol- lowing, a news story from Minneapo- lis also appeared eontaining the in- formation, that the Hennepin County central committee of the farmer-labor federation, with the full support of Mahoney, had expelled the delegates of the Workers Party. story in the DAILY The hews _\ WORKER of Dee. 4, signed by Com- hy C. A. Hathaway, our district or- ganizer, says: “Mahoney, in his speech after the mo- tion was carried, stated that the farm- er-labor federation of Minnesota was essentially a non-partisan organiza- tion having no goal aside from its im- mediate aims for social reform. “In conversation after the meeting he repudiated all the progressive ideas previously held and even went so far as to condemn the workers and peasants’ governmen of Russia. He further stated that at the state con- vention to be held in the near future that the federation would have to take steps to rid itself of the ‘troublesome’ left wing.” Lovestone’s Quotation From Mahoney Throws a Searchlight on His Opportunistic Policy. 2. This present attitude of Maho- ney is no temporary abberation. It is the logical outcome of a long and con- sistent series of betrayals which are known to us, and known to Comrade Lovestone. Here are a few of them: (a) Mahoney fought for LaFollette before, during, and after the St, Paul convention. (b) Mahoney fought in the arrange- ments committee which met on the eve of the St. Paul convention for a resolution excluding the delegates of the Workers Party. (c) At the Cleveland conference of the C. P. P. A. Mahoney swore allegi- ance to LaFollette and repudiated the St. Paul convention. (ad) Mahoney supported Keller, the republican candidate for congress in St. Paul, and fought against Comrade Emme, the candidate of the farmer labor party. More evidence can be cited by our Minnesota comrades ‘to prove the sys- tematic treachery of this faker and renegade. But the facts set forth above are more than enough to show that he is no friend of a “class farmer-labor party,” no friend of the Communists, and no ally for us. Mahoney serves one good purpose, however. His introduction into the party controversy as “Exhibit A” for Comrade Lovestone’s policy is suffi- cient to prove that Comrade Love- stone’s policy is no good, that it is built in quicksand, that it is opportun- istic in the worst and most dangerous sense of the term, and that it would lead the party to the “united front from the top only,” to “maneuvers” around the conference table with “far- mer-labor” fakers, and, consequently, to the degeneration of the Workers Party. Lovestone Finds Sentiment for the “Class Farmer-Labpr Party” Even in the Camp of Coolidge. Another word about Minnesota be- fore we pass over to “Exhibit B”— the farmer-labor leaders of Washing- ton. Comrade Lovestone found sentiment for his “class farmer-labor party” in the most strange and unexpected plac- es. First he found it in the camp of LaFollette emiedice in tne person of William Mahoney. Next he found it in the camp of Coolidge! Tne fact that the farmer-labor party of Minnesota jumped down LaFol. lette’s throat and insisted upon be- ing swallowed, digested, and excre- mented does not mean, according to Com. Lovestone, that it suffered any serious injury. It was a “mere elec- tion union” and it emerged from the bowels of LaFollette in better shape than ever, strong enough to go to Coolidge and repeat the process. Read this piece of evidence for the “class farmer-labor party” submitted by Com- rade Lovestone: “Least of all does it follow that such @ campaign alliance (Comrade Love stone still has that ‘election alliance’ in his head, as I shall prove in an- other article. J. P. C.) means the up- rooting of the idea and sentiment for a@ farmer-labor party. . . For in- stance, in Minnesota, Magnus Johnson and Olson, running on the farmer-la- bor party ticket polled a higher vote than LaFollette. The majority by which LaFollette, running on an inde- pendent ticket was beaten by Coolidge ‘was much larger than the majority by which those running on the farmer-la- bor party ticket were beaten.” This is telling evidence indeed! Do you comprehend the situation? There were, it appears, some tens of thousands of workers in Minnesota who were hot-foot for a “class” party. Therefore, they couldn’t bring them- selves to vote for LaFollette. Com- rade Foster, the candidate of the Workers Party, was on the ballot, but he wouldn’t do for them. They, like the minority, wanted “independent class political action.” They, like the minority, wanted a “class party that would fight the battles of the workers and farmers.” This, of course, elimi- nated the Workers Party. What were these desperate support- ers of the “class party” to do? They couldn't vote for LaFollette since he represented no class party. Foster was out of the question since the Work- ers Party has no class at all when it appears under its own name. Then something remarkable happen- ed. These workers and farmers of Minnesota executed a stroke of grand strategy. They showed such proficien- cy in the difficult art of going North by running South that they deserve to have their names appended as hon- bie signatories to the minority thes- UPON ONE POLICY WE ARE ALL UNITED and that is to Lroure The ast; Worker por bys MOST complete discussion upon because we have the DAILY WORKER, reads the DAILY WORKER, yes, and every one that does not bei future party policy is possible today Every party member who se he cannot read English, will understand this to be an advantage of prime importance to the theoretical development of our members, But the DAILY WORKER serves the party in many other ways. is an all the year around weapon against the foe, it Is an educator, it is a propagandist—and also, it is a bond, a chain, which tles member to member, city to city, district to district. It is the DAILY WORKER that helps to centralize our party into the effective machine it should ‘be. We must keep the DAILY WOR do this we must give our dollars win, then the DAILY WORKER must live and prosper. WORKER, forward to victory, or—nothing. KER and make it safe for 1925. To generously today. If we expect to With the DAILY It should be easy to choose. INSURANCE POLICIES are in the hands of the branches. They are priced $10, $5 and $1. that every member shall buy. $5 POLICY. The Central Executive Committee has decided Every member should buy no less than a And while the party seeths with discussion over our future policy and tasks, there is one Policy upon which there must be unanimous agreement. That is the POLICY to DAILY WORKER FOR 1925. BUY A POLICY to INSURE THE William Z, Foster, Chairman. c. E . Ruthenberg, Executive’ Secretary. These dauntless proletarians of the plains voted for Coolidge! By this master-stroke they accomplished three things: First, they proved that “the LaFollette movement is disintegrat- ing”; second, they got their “class” party; and third, they provided the minority with an argument in favor of their thesis. It is as good as any argument the minority have. Lovestone Condones the Treachery of the Farmer-Labor Leaders of Washington. One more quotation from Comrade Lovestone’s articie will complete the proof that his conception of “an in- tensified campaign for a class farmer- labor party” is an opportunistic con- ception of the “the united front from the top only” by means of negotia- tions and conferences with reformist leaders of reformist organizations. Moreover, it will show that he con- demns our Communist action in en- tering the Workers Party in the elec- tion campaign under its own banner because it alienated some of these re- formist leaders. Comrade Loyestone’s “Exhibit B” is the farmer-labor party of Washington, a reformist party, predominently ag- rarian and based on individual mem- bership. Comrade Lovestone is very indulgent towards this so-called party. He says, it “merely endorsed LaFol- lette and Wheeler.” The leaders of this party attacked and denounced the Workers Party thruout the campaign, but Comrade Lovestone does not seem to hold that against them. It was all our fault! Read what he says in his article in the DAILY WORKER, the official or- gan of the Workers (Communist) Party of America, on Dec. 3: “More than that. There is good rea- son to believe that the leaders of this farmer-labor party would likely never! have sought to secure the endorse- ment of their organization for LaFol- lette or be tempted to drive their fol- lowers into the LaFollette election camp if the Workers Party had not cut itself loose from the national farm- er-labor party on July 10. The bungl- ing manner in which we handled our change in policy then was especially harmful.” Here in plain words we have the real policy of Comrade Lovestone which is the policy of the minority. The evasive, double-meaning language of the minority thesis is put aside. The mask of Marxian phraseology is torn off and the party has an oppor- tunity to see the ugly face of oppor- tunism that hid behind it. The minority thesis speaks very vaguely and evasively about the means to be employed to form the “po- litical united front” by organizing a “class farmer-labor party.” Comrade Lovestone makes the matter clear. We will “handle” the reformist lead- ers of reformist organizations more carefully. We will not make again {the stupid blunder of raising our own party’s banner in the elections. We will see what the “leaders” want us to do and do it. Then these leaders will not “be tempted to drive their fol- lowers into the LaFollette election camp.” These leaders, who, according to Comrade Lovestone are, after all, not so bad, delivered their organization to LaFollette; they “drove their fol- lowers into the LaFollette election camp”; and they maligned and de- nounced our party and its candidates, But why did they make these trifling errors? Because “The Workers Party ; cut itself loose from the farmer-labor party on July 10.” we Comrade Ruthenberg complains be- cause we are not observing the amen- ities of parliamentary debate, and he raises a special “point of order” against the term “farmer-labor Com- munism.” But he is criticising us from the wrong side. We believe that when the party considers all the im- plications of Comrade Lovestone’s ar- ticle, it will say that the word “Com- munism” should be eliminated entire- ly from the definition of his policy. The party and the C. I. will say this policy is “farmer-laborism.” And they will kill it, too! A FARMER-LABOR IDEA OF WORKING CLASS POLITICAL ACTION By T. J. O'FLAHERTY. Whether the Workers Party shali follow the policy mapped out for it by the central executive committee, that is, the policy of building itself into a powerful mass Communist party, or whether it shall dissipate its energies in juggling with a fake farmer-labor party, a thing without any visible means of support and to which the Workers Party must play the role of wet nurse, is the big ques- tion that the next party convention must decide, The object of the pres- ent discussion initiated by the central executive committee is to clarify the minds of the membership so that they shall be able to decide intelligently which policy to adopt and elect dele- gates to the next convention on the basis of that decision. The central executive committee, led by Foster, has formulated a policy in accordance with the basic tactic of the Communist International, i. e., the united front from below. The central executive committee in its theses offers proof that the politi- cal and industrial battlefields of America are not so lacking in fertility that their output is limited to only one slogan, “For a Class Farmer-Labor Party”—which is constantly trimmed by the Ruthenberg minority faction in accordance with the financial and commercial statistics gleaned from the columns of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Annalist, organs of big capital, but by no means as infallible. Like the capain of a gas balloon, who drops ballast when atmospheric pressure weighs heavily on his ship, Comrade Ruthenberg drops his farmer cargo when he learns from the New York Times that there is a rise in the price of alfalfa or t And again, when “Bob” Minor draws a splendid cartoon showing the farmer with his furniture on his back and his family bringing up the rear on their way to the city, he brings out his farmer, throws a fistful of dirt on him and gives him the leading post- tum in bis farmer-labor act. Amazing Confusion. As Ruthenberg is the accepted leader of the farmer-labor wing of the Workers Party, it is only fair that his position should be subjected to an- alysis as the viewpoint of his faction. Therefore his article in the December issue the The Workers Monthly, en- titled: “Is the Movement Towards Class Political Action Dead?” has added importance in that it does not represent merely the views of the author but of a definitely organized group, on the central executive com- mittee and thruout the party, The very title of this article is nothing short of amazing as it puts the x-ray on Comrade Ruthenberg’s po- litical mind. If he had posed the ques- tion “Is the Movement Towards the Or- ganization of a Mass Farmer-Labor Party Dead?” one might dispute his analysis of the present situation; one might dispute his facts, but such a title would not leave him open to the suspicion that he does not consider the Workers Party a party of class political action, This is a serious frame of mind for the executive seo- retary of a section of the Communist International to find himself in. Where is “the Class Party?” Comrade Ruthenberg charges Foster with the heresy of claiming that “the migsinterpretation of the position of the central executive committee, which does not state that the move- ment towards class political action is dead, not so long as the Workers Par- ty continues as a Communist Party. It states that the movement towards the organizaion of a “mass farmer- labor party” was successfully killed by LaFollette and that the latter is the ideological leader of those masses who once groped around for an easy way out of their misery and are now Satisfied that the Wisconsin senator is their one and only Moses. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof of the truth of the Foster contention is in the fact, that the pied piper of Hamlin never blew on his flute with more effect than did LaFollette when he sounded the siren call that alienated the affections of farmer-labor leaders from their former political love, and inveigled them into the more seductive love palace of the C. P. P. A. and its bour- geois affinities. Today, a fine-toothed comb could not scrape up a trade unionist willing to be seen walking the street with a farmer-labor enthusiast, whereas two years ago the woods were full of them. Sentiment for a farmer-labor party shook the big international unions two years ago; today this sentiment is confined to what is left Of the socialist party and the right wing of the Workers Party. Class Struggle Still with Us. Ruthenberg in his article, writes, “The policy of the united front was and is that Communist parties shal) take up the immediate issues growing out of the class struggle . ” Quite true. But the organization of a mass farmer-labor party is no longer an im- mediate issue. It is so far in the ftu- ture that it is an open question whether it shall ever again arouse the masses, But the class struggle still lives and it is a prolific source of slogans. There will be strikes, unemployment, open shop. drives,. injunctions, attacks on the foreign-born workers, wars and threats of war etc. “Ah,” Ruthenberg may exclaim, “but these are industrial and not political issues.” But we have not traveled. so far from 1919 that we do not remember how we in- sisted that every struggle of the work- ing class against the capitalists, whether it be in an election campaign or in a strike, is a political struggle. The great majority of our party stil! holds to that healthy point of view. Ruthenberg seems to think that the reason the C. E. C. decided to adopt the slogan of a farmer-labor party was because no such party already ex- isted, and not because of the fact that there was a mass sentiment for such a party, which it was our duty to im- pregnate with Communist propaganda. It is certainly a new and interesting deviation from Communist tactics that we must organizethe workers whose ideology still is petty-bourgeois into farmer-labor parties, simply because such parties don’t exist. This is a novel conception of the function of a Communist Party. Barren Conception of Party Role. In the entire article Ruthenberg never once hints that the Workers Party has any other function on the political field than to set up a fake farmer-labor party, into which we could inveigle “the most conscious and radical workers in the labor move- ment.” This is amusing. It seems to me that the place for “the most consc- ious and radical workers” is the Work- ers Party. The best probationary school for members of the Workers (Communist) Party is in the work- shops and in the trade unions and not in a half-way house such as Ruthen- berg proposes to set up. A donkey may be induced to speed his gait by dangling a carrot before his nose, but the workers are not donkeys, Com- munism is not moonshine and our role is not that of political bootleggers. It is a fundamental fallacy to as- sume that it is the duty of a Com- munist Party to build a political cor- ral for those workers who are not yet ripe for the Workers Party. We might then use the second party to build an other corral for those not ripe enough to feel comfortable inside its walls. And so on ad infinitum. And our mem bers would be kept quite busy caucus- ing to maintain control of those politi- cal man-traps. The secretaries of these fake parties would be Commun- ists. So would the members of the executive committees. The members of the Workers Party would supply the funds and Comrade Ruthenberg would have a jolly old time writing the manifestos. The Workers Party would be all dressed up with no place to go. No Exaggeration. This is no exaggeration of Ruthen- berg’s position, The formation of an- other federated farmer-labor would lead to the liquidation of the Workers Party. Parties no more than human organisms grow unless they have a function to perform. The min- ority wants the “class farmer-labor party” to take over the daily tasks of the W. P, Dropping Dead Slogans. The policy of the Central Executive Committee is a realistic Communist policy. It drops a dead slogan with movement for class political action is}as little compunction as one would dead,” and that therefore the Work- ers Party must abandon the farmer- labor party slogan. This is dead cat into a sewer, It pro go to the gles, the only slogans that amount to @ tinker’s damn. It proposes to re- cruit the ranks of the party from the militants in the trade unions and the workshops, Instead of diplomatic in- trigues with Hillmans and Mahoneys it proposes open dealing with the masses Whose. class interests lead them into conflict with the Hillmans and the other labor fakers, who are but the labor lieutenants of the capi- talists. In this way our party will popular. ize itself with the exploited masses. It will win their confidence. It can- not be charged with deceit or trickery. Our party will not be in the position of asking the workers to join a yellow farmer-labor party instead of a revolu- tionary working class political party. Sneaking Up on the Workers. Against this policy what has Ruth- enberg to offer? To quote from his famous afticle, “Ite aim (the aim of the W. P.) in conducting the agitation under the slogan ‘For a Class Labor Party’ (note the farmer is ditched) must be the ultimate mobilization of the left wing radical block in the la bor movement under the leadership of the Workers Party.” This group he would inoculate with his brand ‘of Communism in homeopathic doses un- til its personnel could be finally “ab sorbed into the Workers Party.” Whai a kettle of mush! Then Ruthenberg hurls his brim- stone at the head of the heretic Foster who has the audacity to suggest that the Workers Party is good enough for the radical workers in the labor move- ment. He says “The Foster group proposes as & substitute for this pol- joey, the direct attempt to draw inte the Workers Party the workers whom capitalism teaches the necessity of la bor fighting as a class on the political field.” This kind of thing, what the Communists of every country in the world are doing, is branded as “sec- tarian propaganda.” It is branded as @ repudiation of the united front, which only proves that it 1s Comrade Ruthenberg who is very much “up in the air” about the united front ana not the Central Executive Committee. The duty of the membership of the Workers Party in this struggle within our party is to deliver such a severe defeat to farmer-laborism that it will never raised its head again in our ranks. The policy of the Central Executive Committee will lead to the devlop- ment of our party into a mass Com- munist Party. Ruthenberg’s policy will lead to its liquidation. SHALL WE DROP THE SLOGAN OF THE POLITICAL UNITED, FRONT? » . By ROBERT MINOR. In the competing theses of the ma- jority and minority groups of the Cen- tral Executive Committee there are many differences, some of which are very profouhd. For the purpose of this article we will take only one point—the question as to whether we shall continue to use the united front tactic on the political field, thru the use of the slogan “For a mass farmer- labor party.” ‘ ay I support the minority view: we Sin continue to use the united front farmer-labor party tactic, more energetically now than ever before, and with a fundamental correction of our conception of what the united front tactic is. I believe that a profound miscon- ception of the Bolshevik tactic of the united front underlies the whole poli- cy of the majority of the C. E. C. as carried out in the past eleven months, and that only their mistaken applica- tion of it has brought them to the pass where now they wish to discard it as far as the political field is con- cerned. I will indicate what I think are these misconceptions of the ma- jority: 1. Majority group thinks success of a farmer-labor party movement depends upon its not being Com- munist and not being led by Com- munists. That the Foster-Cannon group con- ceived of the farmer-labor united front tactic as one in which the Communists would be as inconspicuous as possible, while quietly trying to “promote” the formation of a farmer-labor party, has been expressed in many ways, but per- haps best in Comrade Foster's speech at the St. Paul convention, when he said: “In answer to the statement which was made by Brother Mahoney, I want to state in behalf of the Work- ers Party that we have not come here for the purpose of capturing this con- vention. “We realize that in order for a farm- er-labor party to be a success it can- not be a Communist Party. “We do not expect to see a Com- munist program come out of this con- vention, a Communist form of organ- ization, or Communist candidates nom- inated, f “We expect to see a platform which will rally the great mass of farmers and workers. We expect that type of organization and that type of candi- dates.” It is a curious coincidence that Com- rade Foster's speech was almost a perfect paraphrase of a statement is- sued by the non-Communist Minneso- ta farmer-labor convention arrange- ments committee some weeks earlier: “There will no doubt be Commu- nists as there will be other schools of thought represented at the conven- tion, but they will represent such a small fraction that even if they so desired, they would make no impres- sion on the great mass of farmers and workers who are interested in pract!- cal legislative measures and not in visionary doctrines.” This passage from the farmer-la- bor arrangements committee’s state- ment had been sharply called to the C. BE. C.’s attention, because of the fact that it had appeared in newspapers as signed by a member of the Commn- nist Party,* Comrade Hathaway, party |secretary of the arrangements com- mittee, as well as by the non-Commu- nist chairman of the same commit- tee. Comrade Foster had in his pock- et at the moment he arose to make his speech, a communication from the Communist International Executive Comimittee declaring the apparent ‘ signing of the statement by Comrade Hathaway as “conduct inadmissible for a member of the Communist Party,” and expressing its surprise that the C. E. C, “did not answer this Hy munist Party and the Communists, when forming a bloc with the petty- bourgeois elements, must so much the more sharply underscore their views instead of disavowing them.” (It appears now that Comrade Hatha- way did not actually sign the state- ment, and that its appearing in the capitalist press over his signature was due to its being accompanied by a mimeographed form letter bear- ing Comrade Hathaway’s signature requesting its publication. Comrade Hathaway explained that it passed thru his hands merely as a matter of routine and that had he noticed the passage above quoted he would have objected to it.) Yet Comrade Foster, confronted with the accusation that the “reds” were capturing the leadership of the convention, could not refrain from getting up and repeating the spirit of the statement, idea for idea, para- phrase for phrase, from beginning to end. ~ Later, at a metting of the party editors and district organizers called by the C. B. C. in Chicago on July 10, Comrade Foster responded to ques- tioning by admitting that he should not have made such a statement to the St. Paul convention, but explain- ed that this was a typical example of the kind of things we are forced to do as the inevitable result of the anomal- ous position we were in at St. Paul; the anomaly being that we found a’ majority of the convention with us, whereas our “natural” position in such an action was to be in the mi- nority. Because we found ourselves in possession of a majority and there- fore responsible for the convention, he said, we were forced into a posi- tion of denying our principles—a posi- tion which we must be careful nev- er to be forced into again. This idea of the Communist role in the labor-party united front is very de- finitely continued in the majority thes- is of the Foster-Cannon group now before the party. 2. Majority thinks a Communist- led left wing farmer-labor party would be “dual unionism on the poll- tical field.” 4 When in 1923, in the “August thes- is” of the C. E. C., we who were then a majority spoke of the possibility veloped into a mass Communist Party as one al 'e that might arise, the Foster group violently objected the idea of the left wing of the movement crystallizing into a party, and demanded its repudiation as “dual unionism on the political field” and as the “split theory.” idea of the possibility of labor party slogan with a sibly to develop a left wing Ey nist Party, was most bitterly ed by the Foster group, who denounc- ed it as criminal folly and as the ab- solute negation of the basic purpose of the labor party tactic which was to get a labor party, . front labor party action like all oth present actions, had and continues have only the unchangeable purpbse of building the Workers Party tnto a pose being sul tative and subject to change to conform to the one supreme purpose. As declared in our August thesis, the development of a ‘mass Communist Party of some hun- dreds of thousands of members would be a far greater attainment, and far more advantageous to the masses of the exploited, than to get a farmer- labor party of three millions based upon what is called the “bona fide” le unions and led by the leaders of those unions, It is true that we p agetage nd ‘ly formulated the “a great mass organization formed organized labor,” ited of a left wing labor party being de-, For us, on the contrary, this united ..:“ mass Communist party, any other pur- bordinate, ten! \ .