The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 10, 1924, Page 3

_ > the revolutionary proletariat. Wednesday, December 10, 1924 THE DAILY WORKER Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate LOVESTONE EXPOSES THE RIGHT-WING ORIENTATION OF THE MINORITY By EARL R. BROWDER,. OMRADE LOVESTONE: has ex- posed another section of the right wing deviation of his group. In his ‘article in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 9, he says: “No one will contend that there ‘TODAY, ‘NOW, a mass de. mand for Communism or for amal- gamation. Yet we very properly to- day, now, propagate and work for Communism, for the Workers’ and Farmers’ Soviet Republic and for amalgamation, because there is an economic basis for these slogans.” Now we know the reason for the hysterical defense of the farmer-labor slogan by the minority. They think it expresses the same basic need of the proletariat as does Communism, or amajgamation. They think the farm: er-labor party is an organ of the class struggle, equal in historical validity with the Communist Party or with the economic organs of struggle of the workers. Therefore, to them it makes no difference that the imme- diate political conditions have chang- ed; they did not favor the farmer- labor slogan on the grounds of imme- diate conditions, but, as they favor the Communist Party or the amalga- mation of the trade unions, they stand fer it whether it is a practical mass slogan or not. They have faith that it must become a mass slogan just as must Communism, the Soviet Repub- lic, or amalgamation of the trade unions. The Same Mistake as That of the German Right Wing. This is petty bourgeois opportunism with a vengeance, more open and flagrant than any ever exhibited in the German party. The only reason why it does not promise such imme- diate disaster is that the American political struggle is not so far ad- vanced. Our minority is the Ameri- can expression of right wing revision- {sm against which the Fifth Congress sounded the alarm. We never ex- pected that we would have the same fight in America so quickly. But here "it fs, What was the essential error of the German right wing? It is stated in a paragraph by A. Maslow, leader of the German Communist Party at present, in an article in Inprekorr No. 77, Nov. 6: “The Communist party is THE party of the PROLETARIAT. The essence of Leninism is that it theo- retically propagates and practically realizes the thesis: there is and can de only ONE: party, THE party of Events in Europe have fully confirmed this doctrine. Wherever it has been dis- regarded (as in Germany in 1923) the proletariat has experienced a defeat.” But Comrade Lovestone does not be- lieve this. He believes that there not ony can be two class parties (the Communist and farmer-labor parties) but that there must be the two, that the second is fully as historically re- » quired as the first. He believes that it is just as much a duty of Commun. ists to raise the slogan of a farmer- labor party as it is to raise the slogan of a Workers’ and Farmers’ Govern- ment, His position is identical in theory with that of the German right struggle for the unity of the trade union movement is one of the char- acteristic features of Bolshevism. . Solely for one reason, because we regarded the trade unions as a center around which the mass of the proletariat, the whole working class gathered ...., They are the his- toric form of the mass organization of the proletariat under capitalism.” . “Lenin often said that had we not had the unions behind us in 1917, the dictatorship would not have lasted months, let alone years” In other words, the Communists fight for unity of the trade unions (amalgamation) at any and all times becaue it is a historic necessity for the revolution, because the winning oi the trade unions is basic revolution- ary strategy, because the Commun: ists must have them as fundamenta) weapons for the overthrow of capi- talism and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. What does it mean, therefore, when Lovestone says the slogan of the farmer-labor party is equally impor: tant with that of amalgamation? It can have but one meaning: Lovestone and our right wing are revising their conception of the role of the Work- ers (Communist) Party. They do not believe that “there is and can be only ONE party.” They think that the farmer-labor party is just as neces- sary for the revolution as revolution ary trade unions and a Communis’ party. Or—is it possible—have they stopped thinking about the revolu tion? An Unanimous Decision A UNITED FRONT UPON THE POLICY TO Srttuvce Sree a T the fast full meeting of the important decision w: made. (ely taker jr M5 Cc. E. ©. of the Workers Party an it was decided that all party Papers must preceed the discussion going 6n in their columns regard- ing the future policy of the party united front upon the POLICY TO DAILY WORKER FOR 1925. by a cail to action, by a call for a BUY A POLICY TO INSURE THE Nothing must interfére with the campaign now in progress to give the DAILY WORKER a helping hand over a bit of rough road it is at present compelled to travel. ber must be had. The C. E. C. vot made by the party until the DAILY WORKER is made The assistance of EVERY party mem- ted that no other campaign shall be fe. We understand that the attention of every party member will gravi- tate towards the interesting party discussion now going on. party member should take a vital interest In this discussion. party member must give equal Every But every attention to helping the DAILY WORKER. The C. E. C. in fact decided that every discussion meeting held must be preceeded by a talk upon and sale of INSURANCE POLI- CIES, issued to INSURE THE DAILY WORKER FOR 1926, Your branch secretary has received a BIG RED BOOK OF POLI- CIES. These INSURANCE POLICI members should buy no less than a $5 policy. sold to sympathizers, ES are priced $10, $5 and $1. Party The $1 policies can be While the party seeths with discussion over. our future party policy and tasks, there is ONE POLICY u; pon which there must be unanimous agreement. That is the POLICY to buy a POLICY to INSURE OUR DAILY. WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA William Z, Foster, Chairman. Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Exeoutive Secretary. Detroit Experience Supports C. E. C. Thesis ‘By EDGAR OWENS District Organizer, Dist. No. 7. ‘HE party discussion should be made the means of a real Com- munist education for our membership. Every phase of the theses should be fully treated, every tendency explain- ed, And when the convention speaks we should have traveled a long way on the road to being “a monolithic party, hewn of one piece.” My contribution to the discussion shall be based upon our experience with the farmer-labor party move- ment in Detroit. I think this exper- fence will not differ greatly from that in other localities. As I have been able to judge from information that has come to me the experience of the party the country over ‘has ‘been sin- gularly uniform. Here in Detroit the party has car- tied on an energetic campaign for the farmer-labor party policy. Barly in 1923 the party machinery was mob- ilized for the July 3 Chicago conyven- vention went forward. Again we went to the unions with resolutions. Again we secured the passage of these resolutions. Last April we issued the call for the Wayne county farmer-labor party convention. The D. F. of L. consider- ed this piece of impertinence on our part. Delegates came from the Car- penters, Painters, Molders, Machin- ists, Barbers, and several other un- ions. But most of them were mem- bers of our party. We endorsed the June 17 call and instituted an inten- sive campaign to gain support. Now we were working against the bitter opposition of the trade union politicians. We fought for June 17. They fought for July 4. We advocated class struggle. They advocated class collaboration. The result? The sentiment we had labored so diligently to develop was veered around to the collaborationist policy of the C. P. P. A. Michigan sent 13 delegates to St. Paul, Eleven of them were members tion. The labor movement here prides |of the Workers Party. itself on being “progressive,” and re-| We returned from St, Paul to con- solutions “for a labor party” met with|tinue the fight. On July 6 we hada comparatively little opposition. | picnic under the auspices of the Numerous unions endorsed the July 3) Wayne county farmer-labor party. convention call. The Detroit Federa-| Alex Howat and Alice Loraine Daly tion of Labor voted to send delegates. |were widely advertised as the speak- After the convention of the fed-|ers. But on July 4theC.P.P.A. en- erated farmer-labor party, Geo. Tries, |dorsed LaFollette for president, and J} D. F. of L. delegate’ who had been|doubt if 200 non-party members at- made a member of the F. F. L. P.| tended our picnic. Our Wayne county Executive Council made his‘ report, ;farmer-labor party resolved itself intc wing which received such a castiga-|and we got the surprise of our lives.|What it had really been from its in- . fore long. Lovestone specifically says tion at the Fifth Congress. The only difference is that Comrade Lovestone has not had an opportunity for doing 80 much mischief, Lovestone Says Labor Party Equally _ Important With Amaigamation. Our right wing says that the farm- erlabor party is equally as important as the amalgamation of the trade unions; they really think it much more important than the trade unions, as they will doubtless say openly be- that if the amalgamation slogan is always timely, then so, also, is the farmer-labor party slogan. Is this a Bolshevik viewpoint? It is not. It is another side of the’ same error pointed out above, the complete misunder- standing of the role of the Workers (Communist) Party on the one hand and a similarly complete misunder- st@iding of the role of the trade un- ‘on the other. ‘You are aware,” said Zinoviev at the Fifth Congress, speaking on ‘the trade union question, “that the first split between the and the mensheviki : occ in ago. .The Bolsheviki have acted ite differently in the trade union tion. In spite of the various its in the’ political organizations t @ revolution caused a split 1903, that is more than subsidy or a call for funds. the 25,000 members of the Workers _ WORKER full square in back of it, lift it right over the rough road under _ foot, and speed it down the highway ahead to victory. the reasons for our defeat. ‘ During the whole campaign for the __ FIRST TIME IN HISTORY © For the first time in history a worker's dally has lived a year without This is an accomplishment, YOUR accom- plishment. Now the decision has been made to place every last one of We were ignominiously defeated. But we were not long in learning F. L. P. we had seriously neglected to take the elementary steps that were absolutely essential to make the F. L. P, policy a successful policy. Our program states that “a real labor par- ty cannot be formed without the trade unions...” But the fact was our membership were not in the trade unions. And this was (and is) true not only in Detroit but thruout the entire coun- try. Reports from the industrial de- partment of our party showed that only a small fraction of the member- ship were in the unions, and the fur- ther fact, that only a small fraction of those in the unions really partic- ipated in trade union activity, » Here in Detroit we undertook to remedy this defect. We undertook an intensive campaign to get our mem- bership in the unions, and our effort achieved considerable success, But we were not so successful in getting them to function actively in the trade unions. } During the fall and winter of 1923 and the spring of 1924 we waged the campaign for F. .. P. and we felt we were making progress. Our campaign for the June 17 con- Party, every friend of the DAILY lrevkaw ception—the Workers Party. The farmer-labor party as distinct from a LaFollete party is dead in Detroit. The F. L. P. is not an issue THE ISSUES IN THE By HAROLD R. JOHN LN the discussion now going on with- in the party as to our party’s im- ‘mediate tasks, in rela- tion to the party's “farmer-labor party” policy, there is agreement on |four points, altho the conclusions are ‘reached in a slightly different way. 1. The proponents of each point of view claim that their proposed pol- icy is the one which is consistent with the present policy of the Communist International. Both agree, rightly, that such consistency is desirable. 2. Both groups agree on the necessity of the Bolshevization of th party. 3. Both groups advocate the build- ing of the “United Front from Below.” 4. The two points of view meet on the proposition that the Workers Party is the leader of the left wing of the labor movement. with them. And what is of greater importance, our membership is not for it. They carry out party decisions in a formal manner, but there has never been any real enthusiasm for it. And if a slogan will not move the membership, what must the effect of this slogan be with the masses? Our first task is to Bolshevize out party. And this process of Bolshe- vization can best be carried out by participation in the struggle of the masses for their elementary economic needs. Making revolutionary .speech- es will not do it, though thif’may help. Issuing revolutionary proclamations will not do it, though this too may help. Political action is something more than participation in election cam- paigns. And it is these more elemen- tary forms of political action that our party must enter into. Wage cuts af- fect our members as the broad mass- es are affected. The fight against the wage cuts brings the masses into con- flict with the capitalist state power. The same is true of the struggle against the open shop. The organi- zation of the unorganized carries with if strikes and lockouts with the police and soldiery hurled against the work- ers. And so on down the line with all these elementary economic issues that confront the workers practically every moment of their lives. It is in these struggles that our party must train itself for the leader- ship of the masses. It lacks the glow of the spotlight. It falls short of the front page. But it is here, and only here that we can gain the support without which, no matter how much we make a noise like a Bolshevik, we are nothing more than spouters of hot air. PARTY DISCUSSION not conductive to the building up and strengthening of the Workers Party and increasing its prestige and ability to lead the left wing of the labor movement; that the reorganization of the party on the shop nuclei basis, the creation of shop committees and the organization of the unemployed, are the necessary methods, ‘The minority agrees that the latter steps are not only desirable but ex- tremely necessary, but claims that political organization of the entire left wing, including the Workers Party, as an entity, with the non-Communists, as a forerunner to a mass Comm: Party and the political unity of alli the workers, is also of prime import- ance. The majority claims that there is no demand, at present, for a mass, class farmer-labor party, that those who did formerly stand for the forma- tion of such a party are now satis- fied that in the LaFollette progressive movement they have such a party or, at least, the makings of one, The minority deny that the demand for a class party of workers and poor- er farmers has ceased to exist outside the ranks of the present supporters of the LaFollette-progressive movement, and contend that the latter elements look forward, not to the formation of a class party of labor, but to a pro- gressive, capitalistic party which shall include, and be dominated by, a labor membership, They (the minority) say that those workers who did mis- takenly support the LaFollette-pro- gressive movement in the recent elec- tion, thinking that, as a result, a class party of labor would be formed, have been disillusioned and have already deserted, or will desert, the La¥ol- "te above, {tink i {rut fom ly partial, presentation of the claims of the maority and the contentions of the minority of the C. E. C. Which is right? Both as a result of logic and of my personal observations I think that the minority is right. If they, and I, are wrong, I believe this discussion will serve to clarify the situation and set us right. However much we wish it were so the Workers Party is not the left wing but only part of it, to say nothing of the party being the working class, nor is the left wing ready to become Com- munist, even tho it has recognized the necessity of united, class action polit- ically and will follow Communist lead- ership. The Workers Party is the leader of the left wing. We must be well organized, better than at present, in order to lead. The left wing, out- side the Workers Party, must be or- ganized politically in order that it can be lead by anybody and the Workers Party must be included in that organ ization so that Communists can lead |Such leadership of the Workers Party |should be open, as the majority would |have it. Furthermore, we look to the slogan, “For a farmer-labor party,” meaning a mass, class party of industrial work- ers and working farmers, not so much as a means of organizing a farmer-la- bor party, but rather as a rallying cry thru which we can bring nearer tc us the non-Communist left which has progressed only so far as to demand simply class action and not revolutionary class action. Remem- ber: “Workers (not revolutionary workers only) of the World, Unite!” For clar'! then action. WHERE DO YOU STAND? ‘ By ANTON BIMBA. HE convention of the Workers Party is coming and there are some very vital questions before us, which must be thoroly discussed by the membership. Here I have before me two long statements on the results of the elec- tion campaign, by the majority and the minority of the C. E, €., and two sets of theses, each 14 columns long, on the results of the election campaign And all of them eminating from mem- bers of the C. E. C. Do you, poor rank and filer, understand them? No, of course not. They were not written for you to understand them. The au- thors of the documents themselves know this fact, so, I noticed they have decided to go along with their theses and explain them to you. So there you are; you got tired of working dur- ing the campaign, you got more tired reading about 35 columns of massed material on the results of the cam- paign and you will get still more tired listening to the explanation of these theses in a closed room filled with smoke. And I think that when you have passed thru this Turkish bath, you will know just as much as when you started. I have read both of these state- merits and both sets of theses. It was quite a hard job, I tell you. I am quite sure that only a very small por- tion of the membership will take pains to read them thru. They will be scar- ed to death by their length and will drop from exhaustion just looking at them. Here is my opinion of the theses of the majority and the mi- nority. P There are only two real questions upon which the difference of opinion arose and which is the foundation of these two sets of theses. One is the question of our attitude towards the slogan “For a class farmer-labor par- ty,” and the second, on the role of the Communist Party in the class strug- gle. All other questions that are rais- ed in both theses are only a repitition of the same things which were said in the communications of the C. E. C. during the last 10 or 11 months. Take, for instance, the questions of the in- dustrial work, the Young Workers’ League, or organizational work of the party. There is nothing new added to these questions and I do not un- derstand why they have been insert- ed in the theses. I stand for the general position of the minority of the C. E. C. and here- by offer my criticism to the theses of the majority. Of course, there are minor points in the minority theses with which one may disagree, but the main conclusions are correct. As far as I can get anything out from 28 columns of this massed ma- terial, the general analysis of the po- litical and economical situation of this country are alike in both sets of the theses. The majority says: “The Dawes’ plan and the victory of the reaction in the elections have raised’the morale of the capital- ist class in the U. S., but have n : re- versed any of the fundamental fac- tors characterizing the present period of decline of world capitalism. . . The proc of disintegration contin- ues and is bound to produce further crisis with further sharpening of the class struggle, “The expected low point in the crisis has not been reached . , 1925 holds the prospect of repeating the experiences of 1920-1921 when six million workers were unemployed. “The known and predicted forces at work all point to a renewed develop- ment of crisis.” Enough repetitions from this set of theses. . The minority in its theses says. “The economic crisis of the U. 8. is not only a passing shadow, but the reflex of the fundamental crisis of the world capitalism, No per- iod of prosperity that may temporari- ly arrest the downward tendency of American capitalism can save it from its doom. The future in the U. 8. holds a period of deep-going depres- sions. Hand in hand with the crisis march the sharpening of the class struggle. The majority says: “The overwhelming weight of eco- nomic tendencies now operating point to an intensification of the class strug- gle. mie The minority follows with the same argument: “The economic conditions of capi- talism will develop sharper and sharp- er struggles. “We must look sharpening of the cl ing out from t tions. ,, So the analysis of the development of the economic crisis and the class struggle in the U. S. of both theses i the same. The Communists must form their tactics on the basis of these analysis. So, naturally, we would ex pect that the same tactics will be for- mulated by both the majority and the minority. But it is not so. Here is where the difference comes in: The majority says: “The basic reasons for our support of this movement (i. e. the farmer-la- bor party movement—A. B.) are not in existence. “There are no longer present the basic conditions which moved our own party and the Comintern to adopt a farmer labor party policy. “The Workers Party, thsrefore, can- not advantageously promulgate the slogan of a ‘farmer-labor party’ at the present time.” And in practice the majority of the C. E. C. have already liquidated that slogan without even waiting for the convention of the Workers Party. without even consulting the member- ship of this very important question. During the election campaign this slo- gan was relegated to the background Our party did not raise that slogan at the convention of the American Federation of Labor. There was a golden opportunity to raise it and crystallize the sentiment in the federa- ation for an independent political ac- tion around it. But, you see, the ma- jority thought that we cannot do it “advantageously,” so they did not do anything—just sat down tight and kept quiet. The minority says: “The slogan of a ‘farmer-labor party’ supplies the propagandistic basis for the development of political consci- ousness of the masses. “In intensive striggles of the im- mediate future, the slogan of the farm- er-labor party also becomes the basis for real campaigns. “The slogan ‘for a class farmer-la- bor party’ remains our most effective means of agitation for political action on a class basis by workers and poor- er farmers.” We see, then, that the majority in its theses rejects the slogan “for a farmer-labor party” even in theory, what they have already done in prac- tice. The minority says that we should maintain that slogan. I think that the position of the ma- jority is a wrong position. It has neither logic nor common sense. Why did we ever raise the slogan “for a class farmer-labor party”? Was there a real foundation for it or did we invent it from our own heads? No, we did not invent it from our own heads. There was a real foundation for it. There was an industrial and agricultural crisis which produced a more intensive class struggle. In that struggle the capitalist class used its political power openly and brutally against the workers. That forced the masses of the workers and poorer farmers to lean towards the indepen- dent political action. This gave us a real foundation for our slogan. The majority theses admit that the industrial and agricultural crisis is not ‘over. On the contrary, it will grow more acute. They also admit that, as a consequence, the class struggle will become sharper. They further admit that the capitalist class will use its political power against the masses in the strikes even more openly than in the past. Therefore, all factors for the development of the independent political action on the part of the masses still exist and will exist in the future even to a greater extent. But someway or other, the majority discovered that there is not and will not be a sentiment in the masses for the independent political action. Therefore, we must abandon the slogan “for a class farmer-labor party.” You see, there is the same cause, but there is not the same ef- fect. Can you see any logic in this reasoning? It the majority thinks that there is no sentiment for the farmer-labor party today and there will not be in the near future, then it must admit openly that there was no such senti- ment in the past, too. Therefore, our slogan was a mistake. But the ma- jority finds somehow to its advantage not to repudiate the past openly, but after beating around the bushes, they can and repudiate the present and forward to the s conflicts grow condi- economic wing | Page Three Tasks hus practically repudiate the past h. a masked form. Such tactics may serve for a political advantage ot some comrades, but it certainly will not serve our party, which must find its mistakes, if there are any, state hem clearly and openly and try to javoid them in the futu Now the question arises: What hap pened with the sentiment and the movement for independent politica) action? The majority answers blunt ly: Mr. LaFollette came along and swallowed it up or “absorbed it.” The majority goes even further and as- sures us that “the masses of the work: and the poor farmers follow the lead of the LaFollette movement.” Well, and what must we do about it? The majority practically says: Let them go. We say: No! We say to these masses: The La- Follette movement is not a movement in the interests of your class. You must organize yourself as a class po- litically into your own class mass party which will fight your battles. But the majority is not so foolish as to sdy to the LaFollette movement openly and directly: “We wish you good luck! Grow and prosper!” No, they propose to put up against the LaFollette party the Workers Party. And they think that here they have liscovered and proposed something entirely new, something unheard of. We always thought that it is our Communist duty to put up always and everywhere the Workers Party against all other political parties, in- cluding labor parties, farmer-dabor parties, or socialist parties, etc, but it seems that the majority did not think that way. They thought that if we raise the slogan “for a farmer-la- bor party” we must forget about the Workers Party. It seems that they had been working under this wrong and dangerous conception when they stood and worked for the farmer-labor party during last summer. No, there is nothing new in their proposal to put up the Workers Party against the LaFollette party. This is our Communist duty, which we must not forget for a single mo- ment, if we want to remain Commu- nists. There are certain fundamen- tals in the Communist movement which we must learn by heart, remem- ber them and fight for them always. We cannot: make any compromises on them, and one of these fundamentals is, that for us the Communist Party is “first, last and all the time.” An- other: “revolution versus reformism.” Third: “Soviets versus parliaments.” Fourth: “Communism versus capital- ism,” These fundamentals are as old as.the Communst movement itself. We do not have to repeat them in our theses every two or three months. The majority, by repeating this long ago accepted duty of every comrade, only tries to avoid the real question of the controversy and wants to ap- pear before the membership as the only real patriots and protectors of our party. “You see, we are putting forth the Workers Party, and they are proposing something else, so they are not Communists at all.” Such tactics in the Communist Party will not work. The real controvertial question is not “the Workers Party versus the LaFollette party.” It is a question, by what means and slogans can we strengthen the Workers Party, bring it into contact with the widest mass- es of workers, so that we would be in a position to propogate to them the Communist ideas and lead them forward towards the proletarian revo- lution. The comrades of the majority them- selves admit that the “masses of the workers and poor farmers are not yet ready to accept the leadership of and to give their support to the Workers Party,” that they “follow the lead of the LaFollette movement.” Now the question arises: How and by what slogans can we get these masses away from the leadership of the La- Follette movement and bring them nearer to the Workers Party? The saying that we propose to them the acceptance of the Workers Party and, further, that we will invite them to join the Workers Party is no answer to this question. The authors of the majority theses themselves admit that the masses “are not yet ready to accept the leadership of the Work- ers Party.” By raising the slogan “for a farmer-labor party,” whica is much easier for the masses to digest at the present time, we, the Workers Party, and under the name of the Workers Party immediately advance to them and acquaint them with the leadership of the Workers Party. They will immediately see that we are trying to approach them and point out to them a way. Not pro- pgsing to them any practical slogan and only hollering on the corner “come along into the folds of the Workers Party,” we will not advance our real cause. We cannot and we must not accept the sectarian tactics of the socialist labor party. Now as to the sentiment for inde- pendent political action. By what means does the majority measure this sentiment? They admit that there were about five million votes cast for LaFollette and that about one million were not accounted for him, this six million votes, at least several million were votes of workers ¥ poor farmers. Why did they vote for Mr. LaFollette? Does the n i eens anes PON EH