The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 9, 1924, Page 4

The Comintern and the Farmer-Labor Party By WILLIAM Z. FOSTER. N their thesis the minority make the claim that their farmer-labor party policy has the support of the Com- munist International. By a series of évasions, half-truths, and downright misrepresentations, they get around the fact that conditions have greatly changed since the Comintern O. K.’d our farmer-labor party policy, and that in the light of the new conditions @ new statement on this policy by the ©. I. is necessary and will be had in the near future. The substance of the changed conditions is that when the Comintern consented to a farmer- labor party policy for the Workers Party, there was in existence a mass movement making toward the forma- tion of a farmer-labor party. This mass movement is no longer at hand. {t has been amalgamated or absorbed Into the. LaFollette movement. Thus has been destroyed the basis of the farmer-labor party policy. It has been made obsolete and its use would be a menace to the Workers Party. So the Comintern will rule when the problem is placed before it in the near future. From the summer of 1922 until its latest decision, the Comintern has al- ways recognized the principle that in order for the Workers Party to propa- gate the farmer-labor party slogan there must be a mass movement for such a party. In 1922, it. was only when there was shown to be a strong movement amongst the masses for a farmer-labor party that the C. I. first agreed to our labor party policy. This principle has been adhered to since in all the letters and decisions of the C. I. upon this matter. In its recent let- ter to the Workers Party on the sub- ject of the third party alliance the same principle was enunciated. A key sentence in the decision reads: “In many states farmer-labor partiés are springing up.” This clearly shows that the decision was based upon the assumption that there was in exist- ence a strong mass movement for a farmer-labor party. But a clearer indication than this that the Comintern would have the Workers Party advocate the farnter- labor party slogan only if there was @ mass movement behind it, occurs farther along in the decision, where the St. Paul convention is dealt with specifically. This section says: “In case of a split the question of whether or not the Workers Party shall act altogether independ- ently in its own name, in the elec- tion campaign, or whether it shall launch a campaign under the name of. the labor party, will de- pend largely upon whether or not it (the Workers, Party) is successful in the split and will depend on how far it maintains contact with the working masses at the June 17 con- vention.” This part of the decision is a sec- tion of an amendment which I sub- mitted to the origina) draft, and which was adopted in full. It came about this way. As a result of over-optimis- tic and exaggerated reports of the great masses behind the federated farmer-labor party, the belief existed in Comintern circles that even if there were a split with LaFollette at St. Paul there would still be sentiment enough to make a mass movement for a farmer-labor party. I disputed this vigorously, asserting that only the “third party alliance” could prevent the amalgamation of the farmer-la- bor movement with the LaFollette movement, inasmuch as both move- ments were ideologically the same. I argued that if a split took place at St. Paul there would be nothing left to the so-called farmer-labor move- ment, except the Workers Party and its immediate sympathizers, which would make necessary the abandon- ment of the farmer-labor party ticket and the placing of W. P. candidates im the field. Hence, I introduced my amendment, which provided for the Workers Party running independent in the eventuali- ty of such a split as would destroy the mass character of the “class” farmer-labor party movement, as Com- rade Ruthenberg calls it. The amend- ment was immediately accepted. Com- rade Zinoviev endorsed it personally, and it was adopted unanimously by the presidium. This shows conclu- sively that the Comintern considers the farmer-labor party slogan dead unless the masses can be rallied by it. The C, I. never intended and does not intend now that we should struggle behind the farmer-labor party slogan if there are no masses supporting it. The minority proposition of propagat- ing the farmer-labor party slogan in season and out of season, mass move- ment or no mass movement, is con- trary to the whole spirit of all the Comintern decisions on the subject. Events at the June 17 convention and afterward proved the necessity t the above-mentioned amendment. The split with the LaFollette move- ment was so deep that there was practically not left of the farmer- party as a distinct organization. were no masses to be rallied by the farmer-labor party so, following the Comintern decision to the letter, ‘we dropped the farmer-labor party and W. P. candidates in the field. le Lovestone bitterly opposed course, which practically the party now recognizes as hav- itely vital for the wel- farmer-labor party, formed at the St. Paul convention, would have been’a major disaster for the | Workers Party. But Comrade Lovestone was willing that it be done, and he has not since changed his opinion. What mat- ter what happens to the Workers Party so long as his beloved farmer- labor party is kept to the fore? It is Comrade Lovestone’s ideas, more than anyone else’s, that. are incor- porated in the minority thesis. He and the rest of the minority, follow- ing out their policy, which is the most opportunistic in the history of our party, are Yor a farmer-labor party re- gardless of the interests of the Work- ers Party. Let them deny this as much as they please, nevertheless, the fact remains as stated. In their thesis the minority get far away from the premises as laid down by the Comintern for our labor party policy. They make, the formation of a farmer-labor party almost a mat- ter of fundamental “Communist tac- tics. Their thesis, for example, makes this astounding ‘statement: “The slo- gan ‘for a class farmer-labor party’ remains our most effective means of agitation for political action on a class basis by the workers and poor farm- ers.” We had thought that the Work- vs Party was the organization thru which to get “political action on -a class basis.” But it seems that ac- cording to the opportunistic minority the farmer-labor party is just as good, nay, even better. We learn much as the farmer-labor Communists put their ideas into print. But, altho the minority seek: to set up the formation of a farmerlabor party as a sort of sacred Communist duty, nevertheless they tannot alto- gether ignore the necessity. for try- ing to prove it a mass, mbvement. And with what bizarre results: In their thesis they. actually have the brass to tell us.that ‘the farmer‘labor parties of Washington, Montana, Colo- rado, South Dakota;‘and Minnesota, altho they voted for LaFollette, are not of the LaFollette movement. What an absurdity! What desperate straits the minority are in order to, get’mass- es for their celebrated ‘class’ labor party. The fact is, as even the veriest tyro knows, these parties are among the highest developed séctions of the LaFollette movement. They have broken from the old parties and have definitely formed themselves in- to a LaFollette third party movement, regardless of what uames they may call themselves. The only real. dif- ference they have with LaFollette is an organizational. one, the question of the immediate formation of a third party. Have the minority adopted the 8S. P. conception that the third party is really a “class” farmer-labor party, ex- cept for a few trimmings? If not, how can they by any stretch of the imagination list the foregoing parties, especially the Minnesota party, as tarmer-labor parties? The minority in their opportunistic hunt for masses to muster behind the dead farmeér-fabor' party slogan, lugged into their serv- ice the choicest collection of LaFol- lette parties in the entire country. In theif thesis the minority also in- form us that the North Dakota farmer- labor party, dnd’ the Washington coun- ty farmer-labor party: “never entered the LaFollette movement, but main- tained their independence.” As for the North Dakota party, it is simply an organization on papef;*“And as for the Washington county party—now it would be important if it could be shown that there is such a party in at least one county out of the many many thousands of counties in the United States. But, alas, the Wash- ington county party is also merely on paper. The only reason it “maintain- ed its independence” was because~it did not venture to call a general par- ty meeting. If it had, the LaFollette rank and file would have formally re- gistered by a majority vote the de- fection which they made to LaFol- “By IDA DAILES. IRST, let us get this basic fact in our minds: The farmer-labor party was so feeble an embryo that despite our anxious and sympathetic midwifery it was still-born. And now it is buried in the LaFollette cemetery. This is an accomplished fact and on this there can be little controversy, From here we must proceed. Two groups in our Central Executive Com- mittee have viewed the same facts and have come forward with different. con- clusions. The majority of the C. B.C. says: “Well, the farmer-labor party is no more. The Workers Party, how- ever, goes on. What shall we do next?” And they present to the party a united front program on the child labor amendment, on the Sacco-Van- zetti case, and propose that for the im- mediate future our political united front shall find expression in similar immediate issues of interest to the working class. No one can say in face of this, that the majority of the Central Executive Committee is aban- doning the principle of the united front on the political field, What ig the attitude of the minor ity? It analyzes the economic situa tion, states the fundamental fact it with the development of capi comes the intensification of the class/for the interests of the workers and|the No Disagreement Here! We. discuss the future tasks of the party preliminary to a decision. After a decision is rendered we march forward unitedly to carry it into effect. In all this the DAILY WORK- ER lends a BIG hand. Today it constitutes our forum for dis- cussion. Tomorrow it will help to carry the decision made into lifes @ We can not get along with- out our daily. And if you are sincere in your desire to keep it, yow, HELP INSURE IT FOR 1925. INSURANCE POLI. CIES ARE ISSUED. Denomina- tion: $10, $5 and $1. Make it your policy to BUY A POLICY. THE WORKERS PARTY: William Z. Foster, Chairman CG. .E..Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary a) lette anyhow. Cannonsburg comrades, who are among the best and most ef- fective workers in our party, tell me that the \Washington county party, when finally boiled down after the de- fection of the LaFollette adherents, |: consisted of nothing but W. P. mem- bers. and their, close sympathizers. Now it is hardly more than a name, They declare that the W. P. running under its own name in the elections would have polled as many, if not more votes. than the local F. L. P. What a sorry line-up of “masses” the ‘minority “make for the farmer- lebor party. On the one hand a dis- play for our edification of a bunch of half a dozen LaFollette parties in the’ granger states, and on the other hand a defunct county party in an in- dustrial section. It is a wonder they did not dig up the deceased ‘Buffalo and Los Angeles labor parties and parade around their. weary skeletons to scare our membership into voting for the minority thesis. The'fact is there are no masses in the farmer-labor party, and the® are none that ican be rallied by that slo- gan, at least not under: present con- ditions.. Hence the slogan loses its value: to the Workers Party. The C. E, C,.thesis (majority) says specifi- cal : iv: “We are not opposed to the labor party in principle. Neither are we bound to the theory ofthe historic inevitability of the labor party in America. Still less do we hold the opinion that the labor party is the only medium thru which independent class political action of the working masses can find expression. We approach his problem from the standpoint of whether the labor party slogan can now be used as a means of mobilizing masses of work- ers for immediate class. political action, and we say neither for the present nor for the immediate fu- ‘ture can the labor party slogan be ‘employed successfully for this pur- pose.” It, however, in the future, condi- tions should so develop as to give a mass character to a farmer-labor par- ty movement, and if at that time this moyement offers an effective means for building the Workers Party into amass Communist Party, then the slogan of a farmer-labor party would be of value and would be used by our party. At present this slogan does not create a united front with masses. Wherever we give it organizational form it simply creates a “united front with ourselves.” It means the setting up of a substitute party for the Work- ers Party, the liquidating of our own party for the sake of an opportunistic non-Communist party. It would. be folly to adopt the minority thesis and'to embark upon a fruitless cam- paign fr an abstract ftarmer-labor party. °"'The Communist Internativnal will never sanction such a ruinous policy. A FEW FUNDAMENT. ALS the farme! ‘slogans. This looks like a blue print, Blue prints are al) ht, but let us examine this one The principle argument is that condi- tions have not basically changed for the better since the farmer-labor move- ment Was supported by large number of workers and poor farmers and therefore it is still a vital slogan. If this argument is correct, then why did the workers and poor farmers desert the farmer-labor party on July 4 19247 Were not conditions then the ‘same as they were on July 3, 1923? Evidently the workers and farmers dc not act according to blue prints. Again, it seems to me that there are two great dangers in the farmer-labor slogan at present. Inside of a sub stantial, organized farmer-labor party, our duty is to support, and criticize at the same time. We point out the shortcomings of a farmer-labor party and propagandize for our own party. But when we come to the workers with a slogan for the creation’ of a farmer-labor party, we will have to borrow the red clothing of the Work- ers Party in order to dress up the farmer-labor ‘We. will have to parade the farmer-labor party as the ‘paragon of all the virtues of a “real revolutionary class party that fights sea SF A i HOW THE LaF: AMIN ere By JAY LOVESTON ‘HE Foster-Bittelman-Cannon group is burdened with the illusion that the LaFollette venture was a howling success. In attempting to show that the conditions have changed they tell us that the working and. poor farming masses now look upon the LaFollette election conglomeration as the farmer- labor party. Therefore, they say, there is no longer a mass demand for a farmer-labor party and the Workers Party must drop such united front tactics. We deny that the Communists can no longer utilize, agitationally or or- ganizatiqnally, the sentiment for a united front farmer-labor movement as a means of hastening the develop- ment of the Workers Party into a mass Communist party. We deny the conclusion of the FosterSCannon group that the LaFollette moyement, led and dominated by the vacillating, weak- kneed petty bourgeoisie, cannot be assailed successfully by the Commun- ists thru the slogan for a united front of the workers and exploited farmers in a-mass farmer-labor party. Great LaFollette Hopes Don’t Materialize. Let us examine the facts. tii iast over the achieved by the LaFollette movement in the last election recognize certain irrefutable evidence. The petty bourgeois optimists and all the others who would have us believe that the LaFollette movement is now in the eye of the masses what the farm- er-labor movement was up to June 17 cannot deny that LaFollette ran far below expectations in the election campaign.* Both of these groups which see LaFollette invincible cannot deny that the “progressive” election achievement was in this sense a dis- appointment. The Wisconsin senator expected to control from fifty to sixty votes in tne electoral college, and to lay a strong enough basis in the new sen- ite and house so as to enable many of the more timid, wavering small shopkeeper and trade union bureau- crat elements. to line up for a perma- nent new party. Of course, nothing | of the sort has happened in the La-: Foliette knows. Masses Being Di Many of. the wor “suecess” Bs everybody per ghee Mig al Se FOELETTE “SUCCESS” FAILED TO DESTROY THE UNITED FRONT FARMER-LABOR MOVEMENT ih At the] lift a finger or raise his voice to help outset, even the most rabid enthus-| line up labor sympathy for the organi- howling “success” | zation of a party at the January con- repentod and has begged his way back into the fold as a full-fledged, regular democrat, Senator Brook- hart has accepted the Coolidge agri- cultural program. Senators like Nor- ris. of Nebraska who were on the fence during the election are now further} away than ever from associating with an organized political insurgent move- ment like LaFollette planned when he entered the campaign. The American Yederation of Labor trade union bureaucracy, at the height of the LaFollette movement, appar- ently pulled out only the toe of one foot from its quagmire of “non-parti- san” political action: when it endorsed LaFollette last July. At the El Paso convention this bureaucracy came back with both feet into the time-dis- honored political morass of “reward- ing’ friends and punishing enemies.” The railway union official supporters of the Wisconsin senator are now hesi- tating and wavering as to their next step. William H. Johnston, the guid- ing spirit of the conference for pro- gressive political action, refused to make even the weakest sort of a pre- tenge to fight for his pet political or- ganization at the American Federa- tion of Labor convention. He did not ference of the conference for progres- sive political action. This tends to decrease the likelihood of any attempt being made to organize a third, a petty bourgeois party at the conference for progressive political action in January, 1925. Today the sundry component ele- ments of the La¥Follette army tend to be apart at poles’ ends. At best this movement is still in the process of crystallization, At such times it be- comes doubly imperative for the Com- munists to help clarify the presently vague and confused gropings of the masses and to direct their unclear wants into the most practicable, the most possible class channels. The Communist Task. In view of the marked trend toward |a farmerlabor united front for the | past few years it becomes plain that ‘the slogan for a mass farmer-labor party and not the comparatively un- heard of “labor congress” slogan as , put forward in the majority thesis can today serve the Communists as a most By C. E. RUTHENBERG. T is necessary to keep the record of facts straight in the party discus- sion. In the DAILY WORKER’ of Dec. 5, Comrade Manley declares that the cost of the farmer-labor campaign to the party totalled $50,000. Comrade Manley could have secured the exact figures from the ‘national office and saved himself such a silly blunder, The figures, as shown by the party books are: ij 360.32 1922—C. P. P. A. expensé..i...§ 1923—Total labor party cam- paign expense, exclusive of BL PGS Pia. . 2,702.83 1924—Total labor-party cam- paign expense, evclusive of PBs Se. 6,582.41 1924—Farmer-Labor Voice de- ficit .. . 1,905.39 1924—National F. L. P. ex- pense . 990.65 Add to this the cost of maintaining the F. F.L. P. from July, 1923, to ‘July,, 1924 as estimated by Com- rade Manley .... 7,000.00 Total $19,491.60 ventures Their “permanent alliance” with the LaFollette movement is already being rockéd to its foundation. Then, it is not true that the labor bureaucracy has allied itself as a unit with the LaFollette movement. The election results show that; no one can dismiss with a wave of a hand the role of the Lewises, the Hutchesons, and Berrys in the last campaign. As we have seen, even-that section of the labor bureaucracy which supported LaFollette is today less than ever homogeneous in its immediate politi- cal outlook and policy. Assume, for the. sake of argument only, that the political hold of the bureaucracy on the massés is as firm as ever. Does that mean that we should not challenge it politically in every effective manner? Does that that mean that we must surrender the field of leadership of the masses completely to the Pankens, Kirkpat- ricks and other socialist party spokes: men in the campaign of agitation for a united front of the workers und poor farmers thru a farmer-labor party? Role of Labor Lieutenants of Capital Besides, since when are the eco- nomic mass organizations of labor not compelled to join. hands for independ- ent political action simply because effective means for clarifying the de- ; veloping class objectives of the masses, It is a paramount task of all parties to lend clarity of ampaign because they expected and | Purpose and plan to the wants and ‘oped that in this way they would asten and assure the organization of | . mass farmer-labor party. These nasses were wrong in their expecta- tions and hopes. The disappointing results achieved by the La¥ollette outfit in the election is now a power- ful force making for the disillusion- ment of these masses in their atti- tude towards the LaFollette move- ment. The close ties between the LaFol- lette movement and democrats and republicans during the election cam- paigns in certain localities against the tarmer-labor parties is further open- ing the eyes of these masses. Then, the general conduct of the LaFollette campaign, its weakness, its hesitancy, its failure to accept the reactionary challenge are also forces making for a growing understanding by the work- ing and poor farming masses of the real character of LaFollette and his aids. . Liquidating LaFolletteism. The election results and the reac- tions of various units of the LaFollette organization show clearly what con- tradictory, what conflicting elements the LaFollette movement consists of. There is no better way of running away further from the truth than by stating that the LaFollette movement is already a definitely crystallized movement, Many repu in and democratic supporters of the so-called progressive party have already turned their backs on the LaFollette move- ment. The vice-presidential candi- date, Wheeler, has gone to the demo- cratic party Canossa: Wheeler has will be fostering a dangerous illus ion in the minds of the working class Another danger is the danger tc those within our own ranks. We wel remember the serious deviations madc by individual comrades and even b; whole units of our party in our farme: labor united front. How much more serious and how much multiplied they would be in a campaign for ¢ farmer-labor party that is. et non: existent can readily this, In conclusion two more thoughts: Under present conditions, does a farm- er-labor party represent a_ political united front or does it represent a par- liamentary united front? In other words, could a farmer: take on the function of active part in day to day struggles of workers, or could it only be used as a rallying- ground in election times? demands of the laboring and poor farming masses. It is the foremost duty of a Communist party to precipi- tate the development of class con- sciousness among the working masses in order to separate these masses more effectively from the reactionary trade union bureaucracy and petty bourgeois leadership. Not until we have succeeded in thus separating the masses from their present mis- leaders will we be able ‘to establish our Communist leadership over them. What ‘Means the Farmer-Labor Slogan? With this analysis of the situation as a background let us turn the searchlight on some of the “evidence” the Foster-Canton group gives us to proye that there is no longer a mass demand for a united front of the work- ers and poor farmers thru a farmer- labor party. Let us examine the fol- lowing gem from the Bittelman thesis: “The formation of a labor party becomes inevitable and possible only inasmuch as the economic mass organizations of labor are compelled to join hands for inde- pendent political action. BUT WHEN THE LEADERS OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ENTER INTO A PERMANENT ALLIANCE WITH THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE, AND WHEN SUCH AN ALLIANCE, THE LADCULETTE MOVEMENT, RE- CEIVES THE RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT OF ALMOST THE EN- TIRE ORGANIZED LABOR MOVE- MENT, THEN THE QUESTION OF FORMING A LABOR PARTY LOSES ITS BASIC FOUNDATION AND CEASES TO BE A FIGHTING ISSUE FOR IMMEDIATE, PRAC- TICAL USE.” (Our-emphasis.) We will spend little time with so fal- lacious a concept of the class struggle as the “inevitability” of a labor party. To us the question of the Communist use of the farmer-labor movement is a question of Communist stratégy for the enhancement of Communist influ- ence. To us, the farmer-labor united front movement is not an end in it- self as it has been, for many months, to those who entertain the ridiculous ilfusion that the Gompers tri union bureaucracy could or would in the Present imperialist era organize or tolerate a mass farmer-labor party. To us the farmer-labor united front movement appears as an effective means of hastening the establishment of Communist leadership over the ‘ Facts and “Evidence.” First of all, there is no basis in fact for the conclusion that the trade union bureaucracy has an unbreakable polit- hold of ES their misleaders 5 attempting to pervert and undermine the aspirations of the rank and ‘king masses? When “th present economic situation in a subse- quent article of the series we will see how ridiculous such an attitude is. in this country have resorted to inde- pendent working class political action; they have done so despite and not because of the trade union bureau- cracy. 4 * The trade union bureaucrats are to- day more likely than ever to redouble their efforts to uproot all united front farmer-labor sentiment, to undermine all sentiment for independent. working class politi¢al action, These very facts are an ‘added challenge to the Communists to intensify their cam- paign for such» political action by the workers. cialist party is trying to establish itself as the leader of the masses in the movement for a farmef-labor party is only an additional reason for the Workers (Communist) Party’ assum- ing with full vigor the campaign for a political united: front of our party with the organizations of the non-Com- munist workers’ and poor farmers, thru a class: farmeflabor party. These conditions, are only additional reasons for the, Communists seeking to become the leddérs and the dyna- mic force of such a united front move- ment. like The Role of the Communist Party. The task of a Communist party is not merely to analyze the objective conditions corréctly. Comrade Heinz Neumann, in discussing the achieve- ments of Marx in a recent number of the Communist International, de- clared: ‘ “He (Marx) was a strong oppo- nent of all mechanical ‘collapse theories’ and of the consequent childish belief in the ‘spontaneity of the masses.’ Knowledge of our objective material conditions on basis of which our policy is built. up and which is only the PRE- REQUISITE of our strategy, is not enough to lead revolution to victory. It is not analysis of the objective situation which is decisive, but con- scious intervention of the subjec- tive factor: the leading party. The task of the latter does not consist only in right. appreciation of the general trend of development, but rather in its acceleration, The task of the party is—to make the best possible tactical use of every con- stellation, to seize consciously all portunities ‘accidentally’ provided by history, ; points of the e ACCELERATION. ot vol of the revolu- tion by leadership application ot alt tactical ref Ia vers from the viewpoint of uniform To the extent that the working masses | ship. The very fact’ that the so-|, ‘maneu- ee eee oe Tuesday, December 9, 1924 Manley’s: Figures The receipts of the national organ: ization for the farmer-labor campaign were; 1923—For a farmer-labor j party fund $ 8,284, 1924—-For a farmer-labor party fund .... an 695.65 Mass class F. L. P. stamps 4,738.34 Farmer-labor assessments 8.776.384 Total $17,444.77 The expenses of collecting this MONEY WETE vce 2,021.76 Net Receipts $15,428.01 The figures for 1923 are available to all party members in the public report of the national organization, appear- jing in the pamphlet “The Second Year.” The figures for 1924 are taken from the trial balance of the national organization as of Oct. 31, 1924, and are available for imspection by any comrade who desires to inevestigate further, ature Tee Sect, Wocrker str Mos, labor bureaucrats, who happen. to be controlling them at a given moment, synonymous? Surely, one must be ob- sessed with a narrow point of view of the composition of the working class and of the development of the class struggle to arrive at such a conclusion, Are we not on the basis of the de veloping economic crisis heading for a situation in which these masses. will revolt against their reactionary lead- ership? Is it not, necessary for the Communists, who always set the pace for the masses and strive to advance the political ideology of these massés, to throw out, on the eve of the im. pendingesharp class conflicts, such slogans ,,.as, “For a Farmer-Labor Party”.to.be built on the organizations of,.the..workers and poor farmers? {sit not our task as Communists to throw, out,such slogans which if propa: sated. and applied will satisfy a mass heed and will hasten a revolt of the masses against the bureaucracy and the capitalist government? These movements towards working class action must not always some- how or other develop themselves. As long as the economic and political conditions prevailing demand such movements, it is our task to facili- tate and hasten their development. Raising questions like success” and the immediate labor party,” during the present party controversy, is only throwing dust into the eyes of the party member- The Crux of the Problem. The question we must ask is this: Is there an economic basis for a slogan of this sort—for a slogan of a united front farmer-labor movement? No one will contend that there is “TODAY,” “NOW,” a mass demand for Communism or for amalgamation. Yet we very properly today, now, propagate and work for Communism, for the Wofkers’ and Farmers’ Soviet government and for amalgamation, be- cause there is an economic basis for these slogans, Z In so far as the slogan for amalga mation particularly is concerned we must continue to work for it and propa: gate it because of the fact that it is a sign of an overworked imagination to believe as Comrade Foster would have us believe, in his article appear- ing in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. that “Fully 2,000,000 union workers were won over to giving organized ex- pression in support of our amalga- mation slogan,” Foster would have us believe today, in the face of the El Paso convention and similar unpleas- ant facts, that the majority of the organized workers in, the United States have consciously and know- ingly accepted the amalgamation slogan as put forward by Communists in all its implications. i The fact that it may take some before we will achieve what Foster is trying to lull us into 5 ing we have already won, does not mean that we have to desist from the immediate and energetic use of the amalgamation slogan.. On the con- trary, because we have not yet won over a majority of the unionized work. Jers (not certain union officials or {some convention delegates — united front from below and not the top) “to giving organized expres- sion in support of our amalgamat slogan” must we continue this paign, , Communists do not measure the validity of their tactics and with the same yardstick ‘that the vulgar bourgeois pragmatists Communists do not test the tionary value of their slogans. ciples by the chances of “ not depend on such “immediate, ) (