The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 11, 1924, Page 3

cya “tne Communist International than the j “ f { \ Thursday, December 11, 1924 ni By JAMES P. CANNON. \ FIRST ARTICLE, How the Minority “Fought” Lore When They Controlled the Party, ‘HE outstanding Characteristic of the right wing always and every- where is its political cowardice. This has been demonstrated so- often in the international Communist move- ment that it can be laid down as an axiom. Opportunism is so foreign to Communism that it instinctively feels itself to be an intruder and tries to conceal its identity, The right wing never has the courage to stand up and fight directly for its policy, but tries by devious ways, by indirection, and by shifting issues, to advance its influence and smuggle in its policy. At least a tendency in this direction is manifested in the article of Com- rade Ruthenberg in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 6. In this article Comrade Ruthenberg runs away from the central and immediate issue of the “class farmer-labor party,” which has already been so badly shattered in the party discussion. He attempts to divert the discussion from the real issue of our present and future polic in regard to the labor party questio: to the question of who was right and who was wrong in the past on a num- ber of questions. By raising the issue of the opportunistic errors of Comrade Lore he evidently hopes to avoid fur- ther discussion of the opportunistic policy the minority sponsors now. We welcome the ‘occasion to dis- cuss this issue of “Loreism” openly before the party. But we will not oblige Comrade Ruthenberg by sepa- rating it from the present issue of the opportunistic policy of the minority on the “class farmer-labor party.” On the contrary, we will link them up together and show that the attitude of the minority toward the opportunistic errors of Lore has been itself, from first to last. an example of opportun- ism. The Lore question has a history and to deal with it adequately and get the true perspective we must go back a little. Comrade Lore's mistakes did not begin since the present central executive committee took office. As Comrade Olgin points out in the DAILY WORKER of Dee. 6, they be- gan in the early days of the Comin- tern. They arose from a faulty con- ception of some of the essential ele- _ments of Leninism and for that reason they have been repeated in a quite systematic manner. The Lore of this year is no more ., out of harmony with the main line of Lore of last year, when the Pepper- Lovestone-Ruthenberg group were in control of the party. In fact, as I shall prove in these articles, Comrade Lore is today closer to the Comintern than ever before, As a result of the C. I. decision, and the ideological struggle of the C. B. C., he has publicly admit- ted a number of his past errors, which is the first necessary step towards cor- recting them. This does not please the minority, but we are sure it “pleases the Comintern. Therefore, let us have a real and thoro discussion of the Lore question. Let’us review it at least for the past two years. Such a retrospect will re- veal some very interesting facts. The thesis of the minority says: “Contrary to the decision of the Communist International, the Fos- ter-Cannon group, in place of carry- ing on a struggle against the ten- dency has maintained an organiza- tional alliance with it.” . Comrade Ruthenberg repeats these accusations in practically the same words, In these articles. I will not only show the falsity of both these accusa- tions, but I will prove the following: 1. The Pepper-Ruthenberg group it- self had both an organizational and political alliance with Comrade Lore. 2. The Pepper-Ruthenberg group never once uttered a word of criticism of Comrade Lore, to say nothing of making a fight against his ideas, dur- ing the whole year in which they con- trolled the party, altho some of his greatest mistakes were made during that time. <a oh 8. The Pepper-Ruthenberg group did not utter a word of criticism of Comrade Lore during the last party convention, but, on the contrary, sought his help in their fight against us. ‘i 4. Their “fight” against Lore began only after the last party convention, Snot as an honest ideological struggle, butt as a factional maneuver against the \C. B,C. The Minority Attitude Toward Lore When They Controlled the Party. In the hectic days.of 1923, the year of the boom, when the party was _ EASY TO CHOOSE VICTORY! ‘That's what we are aftor. If we expect to win then the DAILY WORKER must live and prosper, Victory and thé DAILY WORKER are inseparabl bound up with each other, The daily AND victory or—nothing,.It should be easy to choose! The C. E. C., the Minority, and Comrade Lore buying gold bricks right. and left, Comrade Lore was in high favor with the C, H.C. He was handled with the greatest tact and consideration, and his advice and support were always sought whenever a question of policy was to be considered. Comrade Lore was carried around—so to speak—like a basket of eggshells. I never saw a grown man handled with more tender concern, If I may be pardoned a few personal allusions, which are introduced, not in any sense as a complaint but mere- ly by way of illustration, I might cite the fact—to show the high favor en- joyed by Comrade Lore—that he was drawn into the political committee when I was excluded from it, and tha’ he was appointed a member of the ( BH. C. steering committee at the July 8 convention in Chicago which I was denied the right to attend, being as signed to speak at a picnic in Port land, Oregon, on that historic occas- ion. After July Third, After “July 3” the C. E. C. returned to New York with the “federated er-labor party” in its brief case The letter of the Y. C. I. to the Young Workers League of America quotes Karl Radek, who wrote the last C. I. thesis on America, as having said in the American, commission: “The fed- erated‘farmer-labor party is seven- eigths a fantasy.” What the other one-eighth consisted of, the letter does not sa: In August meeting of the C. EB. C., Comrades Foster, Bittelman and myself began to ask a few questions about this “fantasy”; but Comrade Lore supported it. Perhaps I do him an injustice. Comrade Lore’s attitude, as I recall it, was about as follows: “We've got it, so we have to keep it.” At this meeting the “August thesis,” the most curious: melange of oppor- tunism and confusion ever pressed in- to one document, was adopted. Foster, Bittelman and myself voted against it. Comrade Lore voted for it and his support was most gratefully accepted. Comrade Lore was one of Comrade Pepper's famous “majority.” I men- tion this merely as a matter of his- tory. Up till the time of this meeting Comrade Foster had also been gener- ally been supporting the original ex- periments of Comrade Pepper in the Political laboratory and had conse- quently enjoyed a certain respect in the C. E. C. In fact, Comrade Foster was highly regarded. He was immune from all criticism, and, as long as he the C. EB. C., was given the title, not only of “leader of the party,” but “leader of the whole American work- ing class,” When the attempt on -his fe was made in Chicago, the Worker carried a two-line streamer head, written by Comrade Pepper, running across the entire first page. “The capitalists want to kill Foster—WORKERS YOU MUST DEFEND YOUR LEADER!” The Attempt to Destroy Foster. But when it became apparent that Comrade Foster was not becoming reconciled to the F. F. L. P, “fantasy,” and that he was beginning to assert his right and duty to participate ac- tively in the party leadership, the leading group in the C. E. C., which had formerly been heaping such ful- some flattery upon him, turned on him in tury. They set out to destroy him, to “kill” him, to rob him of his great prestige and undermine his authority in the party. The leading group in the C. B. C, suddenly discovered that Comrade Foster was a “syndicalist,” a “trade unionist,” that is to say, no good. A subtle campaign in the party press against “non-Communist and syndical- ist tendencies” held by unnamed com- rades was accomplished by a sys- tematic whispering campaign of slan- der and character assassination in the party ranks against Foster and the Chicago trade union comrades gener- ally. Some of Comrade Lore’s greatest errors were made during this period —his estimation of events in Germany and the party crisis there—but the C. E. C. took no notice. It was too busy fighting the “trade unionists.” This campaigh to destroy Foster and the group closely associated with him continued right up to the last party convention and was the one big issue there, The convention divided into two camps over the resolution introduced by Pepper and Ruthenberg, which had for its object the putting of the whole blame for the July 3 debacle upon Foster and the Chicago trade ing the whole brunt of the fight for the party. In the C. E. C. meeting held on the eve of the convention, and in the con- vention itself, Comrade Lore voted for the resolution of Pepper and Ruthen- berg. The overwhelming majority of the convention delegates, however, re- volted against this monstrous piece of political crookedness and swept those who sponsored it out of power in the party. What Happened in the Last Party Convention? The minority have been making the statement, and still repeat it, that the present C, E. C. gained the majority at the last party convention by mak- ing “an alliance” with the Lore group, and that this alliance is still maintained. Here are the facts: 1. The majority of the present C. BE. C. appeared at the last party con- vention as a distinct and independent group, having its own policy on every disputed question that came before the convention, 2. On all questions we had a clear majority of thé delegates from the beginning of the convention to the end, 8. We made no.compromise on any question of policy with any group or individual in any way, shape or form. We specifically refused all proposals of the Lore group to change or modify our attitude toward the “third party alliance.” (In this we were wrong, but we fought honestly for our wrong position.) 4. The Pepper-Ruthenberg group, in its desperate efforts to get the sup- port of the Lore group for their fight against Foster and the Chicago trade union group, went to: unheard of lengths. They withdrew the entire section of their thesis dealing with the “third party alliance” In order to avoid a collision with the Lore group. In addition to this they centered their whole fight, during the entire con- vention, on the Chicago “trade union group” and had not a single of criticism for Comrade Lore. 5. Our group received from the convention a clear majority of the C. BE. C. members, independent of both other groups. That majority has stood unshaken until the present day, firmly united, on the rock bottom foundation of common policy, con- stantly drawing a line between itself and the Lore group, as well as the Lovestone-Ruthenberg group, on ques- tions of policy. The present majority of the C. E. C. has a policy of its own and fights for that policy. It had no alliance with anyother group, organizational or otherwise, at the party convention and has no such alliance now. The above constitutes a record of facts which no one can deny. It shows that Comrade Lore was politically and organizationally united with the Pep- per-Ruthenberg group at the time this group was leading the C. E. C, The record shows that Comrade Lore was highly honored by the former C. E. C., being drawn into the political com- mittee and appointed to the steering committee at the July 3 convention THE DAILY WORKER Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Ta UPON ONE POLICY WE ARE ALL UNITED and that is to Traine he Maile iborher hn Mies bs arrvena MOST complete discussion upon future party policy is possible today because we have the DAILY WORKER. Every party member who reads the DAILY WORKER, yes, and every one that does not because 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, It is an all the year around weapon against the foe, it is an educator, it is &@ propagandist—and aiso, it is a bond, a chain, which ties 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 WORKER and make it safe for 1925. To do this we must give our dollars win, then the DAILY WORKER must live and prosper. WORKER, forward to victory, or—nothing. INSURANCE POLICIES are in the hands of the branches. priced $10, $5 and $1. that every member shall buy. $5 POLICY. generously today. If we expect to With the DAILY It should be easy to choose. They are 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 BUY A POLICY to INSURE THE DAILY WORKER FOR 1925, ‘WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA William Z,. Foster, Chairman, Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary. in Chicago, It shows that the former Cc. E. C, sought the support of Com- rade Lore at the convention, that it received this support on the main issue of the convention and that it made no criticism of Lore there. And it shows that some of Comrade Lore’s greatest errors, which the C, I. has pointed out, were made during the administration of the former C, E. C. and passed over in silence. During the entire year that the present minority controlled the party, up to and thruout the party conven- tion, their “ideological struggle” against Comrade Lore’s ideas was— not a word of criticism, not one single article, nor speech, nor motion. Their “fight” against Comrade Lore, which Comrade Ruthenberg now demands so virtuously, was—an organizational and political alliance with him against the “trade unionist Communists.” In my next article I will prove that the great fight of the minority on “Loreism” since the last convention is not now and never has been prim- arily directed against the wrong tendency of Comrade Lore, On the contrary, it has been directed against the C. BE, C, This indirect means of atta the C. E. C., under cover of a fight against “Loreism,” is merely ‘a continuation of the last year’s direct attempt’ to destroy Comrade Foster and the group around him, and is organically connected with it. The raising of the Lote issue by the minority, after the convention, was merely a shift in tactics to serve the purposes Of unscrupulous factionalism. The real target was not the wrong tendencies of Lore, but the Commun- ist C. E, C. which has nothing in com- mon with these tendencies. New York Campaign Disproves Minority Position By REBECCA GRECHT. falseness of the contention of the minority that the Workers Party cannot as yet itself serve as a rallying point for the class conscious elements within the labor movement, and can gain a hearing before them only to the extent that it fights for a farmer-labor party, was effectively demonstrated by the recent election campaign carried on by the Workers Party in New York. Tho the wisdom of the @eatafen to drop the farmer-labor p=rty emd wage a Communist campaign wae at first questioned by many members of the party, there is today little doubt left in the mjnds of any New York com- rades that the policy was correct. Their attitude is usually expressed in this way: “The campaign put the Workers Party on the map in New York. It made us a political factor in this city.” What does this mean? ‘ {According to the conception of the minority, the Workers Party as such cannot marshal the “left class ele- ments,” who are not yet prepared to accept the proletarian dictatorship. How, then, was it possible for the party to “put itself on the map” in New York when it carried on an in- tensive campaign under its own name as a Comumnist Party, with Cony munist candidates? form into a “left class farmer-labor bloc.” Admissions and collections at mass meetings, donations from local unions, subscription lists circulated in shops—these were the sources of the campaign fund raised in New York And there can be no question that this sum would never have been gath- ered were not the left wing, the class conscious workers, ready to follow the Communist Party, It is very significant to compare the financial-support the Workers Party received in its campaign with that re- ceived by the federated farmer-labor party of New York City. If the minor- ity were correct in its analysis, then the F. F. L. P., being a labor party with its wider appeal to the broad masses of workers, should have re- ceived considerable financial aid trom organized labor. As a matter of fact while 25 local unions and 73 fraterna) organizations officially contributed tc the Workers Party campaign fund, only two local unions ever paid the per capita tax to the federated. Mem. bers of the minority might agree that the campaign for support of the fed- erated was not pushed—hence the poor showing. To which we may well reply that the money the federated might have gotten would have been contributed by those very unions who were ready to support the Workers Party. Significant also were the mass meet- ings arranged by the party during the campaign. New York had never before seen such rousing mass demonstra- tions for the Communist movement. The Foster meetings alone were at- tended by about 6,000 workers. Who were these workers? Workers Party members and militants accepting the leadership of the Communists. No farmer-labor party, federated or other. ely admitted on all sides, the came because these meetings wing in character, was prepared to follow and support the Communist Party. Certainly the F. F. L. P, of New York could never boast that dur- ing its campaign last year it was able to rally any considerable mass of workers to its demonstrations. In fact, its audiences were composed oj Workers Party members and a close circle of sympathizers whom the party could rally to its support without the cloak of farmer-laborism. Further proof of the appealing power of the Workers Party itself was given by the highly successful street meetings which were held thru- out the campaign. These outdoor rallies very often approached the character of mass meetings. They were each attended by 200 to more than 1,000 workers who bought our literature and contributed to our cam- paign fund. They were the means of spreading the principles and program of the Workers Party amongst thou- |sands, added new members to our |ranks, increased our circle of sym- jpathizers. At no time during the F. F, L. P. campaign last year could we |point to our street demonstrations as |indicative of the “appealing power” of |@ farmerdabor. party.. True. the: presi- dential election this year raised the general level of interest in politics. The fact remains, however, that not- withstanding all the pious wishes of the farmer-labor enthusiasts in our party, the workers did not flock to listen to our plea for the federated on the street corners of New York. But they did rally in great numbers to hear the message of the Commun- ist Party. Defenders of the minority thesis may argue that if the Workers Party was able to gain a wide hearing be- fore the militant workers of New York during the recent campaign, it was due mainly to the fact that we raised the slogan of a farmer-labor party. This is a false analysis. The issue in New York, where the socialist party at the height of its power polled over 100,000 votes, was not a farmer-labor party versus a LaFollette third party. The issue was, a party upon the prin- ciples of the class struggle versus a party based upon the policy of class collaboration, Our party in New York came to the fore in this campaign as the only By L. CANDELA. ‘O be a Marxist and a Leninist one must be able to understand first how the capitalist system works as a whole and what the fundamental rela. tions are between the exploiting class and the exploited class; second how to apply the best tactics to awaken mistakes, The thesis of the majority, altho it is cautious from beginning to end in giving facts and proposing the means of the future struggle for the advan tage of our movement, draws a very, very poor conclusion. It seems that the analysis of the comrades compos- ing phe majority of our C. E. C, at the present time, is that the LaFollette movement will develop as the social- democratic movement of Germany, the left bloc of France and the labor party of England developed, and there: fore, the majority says we must wait until the LaFollette movement is crys tallized and has acquired power, namely, when it “Begins to show con- crete and practical signs of its an- tagonism to the working class.” (Read section 6-7 of the majority thesis on the political situation.) At that time, according to the ma- jority, by means of the united front from below our party will find itself in a very influential position in the la- bor movement. We will then, the ma- jority says, be able to counteract the LaFollette movement by assuming leadership of the masses. This seems to be the simple and logical conclus- ion of the majority thesis. The trouble is in their anxiety to be over-cau tious, they hardly explain a clear cut view of this proposition. First of all, as a Communist, I wish to object to the demagogic use ofthe phrase “United front from below,” as the minority thesis is agreed on the united front from below. The fact that they are in favor of arousing the masses does not mean that the minor- ity refuses to have a unjted front from below. Contrary to the men- shevist interpretation of some of the majority comrades, the slogan “For a Class Farmer-Labor Party” means to further the united front from. below on the field of political activity. Coming to the main point, we see that the majority thesis is not op- posed to the labor party in principle (see section 8 on the political situa- tion.) But the majority is opposed to the use of the slogan “For a Class Farmer Labor Party” as one of the best means to disintegrate the LaFol- lette movement and to strengthen the ranks and the prestige of our party. rther, because they find themselves trapped in the historical development of the labor movement in this coun- try, they propose a general labor con- gress as the main objective of our activities (ending of section 8.) Personally I could not understand what the majority means by calling a general labor congress. I do not know, nor have they themselves given a clear idea, as to the objective of calling such a labor congress. We must be clear on this point because it is very important to the life of the party. Suppose the idea of the major- ity were realized, and the general la- bor congress were called, let us say from below. What would be our posi- tion before such a congress? Cer- the exploited class to the reality of things, and replace the capitalist sys- tem with the Communist system. At first sight, this seems a simpl Problem, but going into the ma more deeply, we will see that there jare more and more compl ed prob lems, requiring a solution. After more thoro study we realize that to reach our goal is indeed a hard task.| That is why we often find that lead ers of our movement make serious class party of the workers. We were|tainly it would depend on what the replacing the socialist party in the/ situation happened to be at that time. minds of class conscious workers—|1 believe the comrades of the major- which means that we had considerably ity will agree with me when I say strengthened our leadership of the|that such a labor congress would not left wing elements in the labor move-|pe a Soviet congress, and our party ment of New York. What was the/would therefore make the most ad- reason? Was jt becuse the socialist}vanced economic and political de party betrayed the farmer-labor party|mands possible under the circum: idea by supporting LaFollette while| stances. we, the Workers Party, favored and) Then the logical conclusion is that fought for such an organization? By| the congress would constitute itself no means. The reason lay in this: |into a political body, for the LaFollette that the socialist party, by its al-|movement by that time would have lance with the petty bourgeoisie, had}shown signs of betraying the work given the final proof of its desertion|ers. This would mean the formation of the revolutionary struggle, while|of a farmer-labor party. So our puri- we stood forth as the only represen-|tan majority comrades will find them. tatives of the class interests of the|selves the formers of a farmer-labo: workers, party in spite of themselves. It was as the Workers Party, un-| However, if we go a little deeper compromising defender of a militant] we will learn that things will not be struggle against capitalism both in|developed as easily as they are de- immediate as well as ultimate de-|scribed. If we really mean to get the mands, and not as the Workers Party |organized workers together in a politi- advocate of a farmer-labor party, that|cal body, then in the course of our we were able to rally to ourselves the |activity we shall adopt a strong politi- class conscious workers of New York.|cal slogan, which combined with all The election campaign in New York |Our other slogans and activities wil! clearly showed that the farmer-labor|be the means of rallying the masses party has no magnetic charm by until the time is ripe to call such a which it draws masses of workers to|!abor congress, The minority, from its support, that the Workers Party |this point of view, offers the slogan, can be, and is, the leader of the left!"For a class farmer-labor party,” as wing. Those who might be prevailed |the most effective for the purpose upon to enter the “left class farmer-| What does the majority offer in their labor bloc”—that strange political | (hesis ?—nothing. phenomenon recently discovered by the minority—are ready to follow the|raising and fighting for the im- Communist Party. It it is our task|mediate dynamic issues of the class not to organize them into a separate|struggle around our own party, and political body, a semi-Communist sub-}not around the slogan of a farmer- stitute for the Workers Party, but to}labor party, The thesis of the majori- influence them to join our ranks by ‘ty points the way, WHY I AM FOR THE MINORITY TH. Going deeper yet, I am that for a long time to com labor congress is not possil if it does take place, then it velop into another federated labor party, which the Foster-( group has fought in the past. |may develop into another C. P. | if before such an occasion, our ; refuses to crystallize such a cong into a united front on the polit field, which is what the majority gr | has done in the past. | Then comes another questio | Whether or not the Workers Part will ask the congress to adopt its pro gram and platform, and ask the dele gates to bow and obey at its com mand. Such a proposition will be |ridiculous indeed, and it will put the party in danger of remaining isolated jfrom the masses that are to gather at this predicted labor congress. In the last point of the majority thesis, the comrades are warned to be on their guard against a “laborist tendency,” which they say is appear- ing in our party. Further, they say it should be stamped out of the party. That is another demagogic statement which has absolutely no basis in facts. |I took the time to patiently study the | thesis of the majority, and also their objectives, and the comrades who have done the same have noticed that if there is a tendency in the Workers Party which approaches to “laborism,” it is just the tendency of the present majority of the C. B. C. I believe now is the time to clear the deck once and for all. In the past the Foster-Cannon group have advo- cated a broad, genuine, farmer-labor party. Today they want a general la- bor congress which practically ex- presses the same idea. Comrades, let us not forget that our party is going to deal with a histor- ical development of the labor move- ment of America, which has no anal- ogy with the movements of France, Germany and England. It is true that the LaFollette movement is of the same composition as the soctial-demo- cratic party of Germany, the left bloc in France and the labor party of Eng- land, Of course it is petty-bourgeois, containing the bureaucrats of the trade: unions, the labor aristocracy, professional politicians, etc. And they will render the same service to the great capitalists. But the comrades of the majority do not seem to understand that the structures of the said movements are: different from each other, because they developed in different historical ages and among different economic conditions. Altho the MacDonald group of the English labor party wilt play the same part as the social-demo- cratic party of Germany has played in the history of the class struggle, it is not organized on the same basis ae the German party. So it is with the left bloc of France and the LaFollette movement in America. The LaFollette movement is already discredited in. many ways, and is not yet crystallized into a third party. Faced with these situations, the C. I. has instructed the Communists in England to penetrate into the labor party while different tactics are pur- sued by the comrades of France and Germany. As Marxists we too shall be able to maneuver in the American movement in accord with the condi- tions and the situation in America. Our party must find the best means of approaching its goal. The minority thesis gives « brilliant analysis and conclusion as to what should be our tasks in the American Jabor movement, We mus: nt forget that while America has th: most highly developed capitalistic system in the world, the American masses are among the mvst backward in re- ceiving the Communistic and social- istic theories, In addition, we are go- oing thru an age of world capitalist de- cline. The masses of America have not yet awakened to the consciousness of their political independence. That is why the LaFollette movement is not as yet erystallized into a party. Therefore the situation in America must be considered from different an- gles than in other countries to meet America’s unique objective conditions, The minority thesis offers us the slogans, “For a class farmer-labor party, as one of the most effective means of opposing the crystallization — of the LaFollette movement into a third party, and increasing the pres- tige of the Workers Party among the masses of America. Amalgamation of the craft unions into powerful indus- triak unions! Organize the unorgan- rt Relief for the unemployed! Re organization of the party on the basis of shop nuclei! Join the Workers |Party! Active participation of the |party members in immediate burning issues that confront the masses, and |raising of political slogans in connec |tion with all industrial struggles, thus directing these struggles toward po- litical objectives and developing tical political action!” f When some of the majority com- rades write that the minority adopted — tho farmer-labor slogan as the only way open to the Workers Party | arouse the masses, we may say these majority comrades give example of political honesty, b such an assertion is not true, minority thesis contains