The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 12, 1924, Page 3

THE DAILY WORKER Page Three ty’s Immediate Tasks Discussion of Our Par | Friday, December 12, 1924 7 \ l ; or _ minority has thereby rejected the Len. .).(man material inherited from the pre- , party period. The simplest surveyal "come a Bolshevist party, \ ed some effect of the guidance of the WAR AGAINST OPPORTUNIST C By EARL R. BROWDER, “Organized confusion” is the out- standing characteristic of the thesis of the minority. It is a perfect illus- tration of what the. thesis of the C. E. C. (majority) warned against as the right deviation of:farmer-laborism within our party. Under cover of “leftist” phrases, the minority is ad- vancing a revision of :Communist con- ceptions of political action, of the role of the Commmnist Party, of the na ture of “class action,” and of the pro- cess of revolutionizing the masses. On each of these points the minority stands for a defiriite right-wing revi- eion. Let us briefly prove this in their own words. Minority Identifies Political, Action With Parliamentatism. The majority thesis states the Com- munist position that the whole class struggle is a political struggle, and that the purpose of the united front is to engage in all struggles of the workers to sharpen and develop the political aspect and thus bring the workers closer to Communism. The minority, on the other hand, contends that the only possible kind of political action, on the united front basis, is in the form of a farmer-labor party. Such ‘an idea has no sense or logic at all, unless wé start from the social-democratic conception that par- ticipation in elections is the only form of political action. But it seems that the minority is leaning very, very Comrade Ruthenberg, in The Work- ers’ Monthly for December, goes so far as to say that the slogan “for a farm- party.’ Political sense. if the farmer-labor party is dead, then the class struggle is over. But Com munists are not so easily discouraged We knew all the time that the Work- ONFUSION Communist Party as the only class party of the workers. Minority Wants Two “Class Parties.” Here we touch the heart of the mis- take of our minority. rors reach down to their conception of a “class” farmerdabor party. “Even tho dominated by conservative labor leaders,” said GC. E. Ruthenberg in The Workers’ Monthly for November, “a party created by the C. P. P. A, based upon the labor organizations it represented, would have been a labor +). Which would “fight for the economic interests” of the workers and poor farmers. They think that such a party would be an expression of “working class political action” as “class action.” There is only one sense in which a farmer-labor party is class action, and that is, it is part of the working class acting. But that means nothing in a “Class action” of the workers becomes something more than a phrase only when it is action direct- ed against the capitalist class, that is, revolutionary action. party action is a reflection of the il- lusions of the masses, of the idea that by electing a few “labor” leaders to office they can make the world suitable for the workers to live in. Is the organization of such an illu- sion, “class political action”? The C: E. C. says no, it is not; but the mi- nority thinks it is. All of their er- Farmer-labor They even go so far as to say that if we give up the crime against our party to remain si- ient. Comrade Ruthenberg has been the first to wince at the personal trend fact that he opens a personal attack in which Comrade Foster also has an article, but an article which proceeds ence to persons but strictly to policy. thet of “syndicalist.” my persistance in this left error. on trial. Syndicalist! pa! Mea culpa! been able to change at all. is distinctly noted. Fight Both Deviations! of the discussion. This in spite of the on Comrade Foster in the December “Workers’ Monthly”—the same issue from beginning to end without refer In addition, we have been charged with “polemical detectivism” by those who, even before discussion had open- ed and continually since, have hotly stigmatized the majority with the epi- Now it may be a ctime in a Com- munist Party to enter it from and to remain in a proletarian organiza- tion, if so I must apologize, tho the Profintern may share the blame for But I am disposed to take up this accusa- tion of “syndicalism” against the ma- jority, as it places our accusers also It we of the majority are accused of not being Communists, but syndicalists, we may be permitted the privilege to inquire into how far to the right our comrades of the minority. have moved that they feel we are so far to the left as to be “syndicalists,” Mea cul-|that they should be united. But then, on the other hand I never was an anarchist, whose mind the Russian revolution could change only a very little, nor was I a parlia- mentary socialist whose mind neither the revolution nor anything else has The Com- There {is an essential and fundamen- 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 life. We can not get along with- out our daily. And if you are sincere in your desire to keep it, you'll 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 Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary cites that the workers are struggling in New England, in California and in West Virginia. He correctly says He cor- rectly adds that they should be united “by a political party of the workers” (which, according to Bedacht, how- ever, is not the Workers Party). But wonderful to relate, even if the Work ers Party gets these workers together it must “supply the slogan of the far- same New England, California and West Virginia cited by Comrade Be- dacht as an arena of struggle, as well that they wouldn’t vote for the Work. ers Party, are, queerly enough, in neither the I. W. W. nor in a “class farmerlabor party” of their own. They are simply lost in space! A po- litical phenomenon of Comrade Pep- per’s “LaFollette revolution,” and the endomorphic theory of the creation of farmer-labor parties. But Comrade Powell, and other ex- ponents of parliamentary. cretinism, such as Comrades Reeve and Kaplan, who think the part is a sort of a foot- ball ground to romp around in and not an organ of revolutionary struggle demanding a serious and receptive apprenticeship as a preliminary to leadership, are all accountable in the loose way the party has permitted its members to regard their class duties. Torturing the Capitalist Decline. But it is an astonishing revelation of ideological bankrupety to hear Comrade Ruthenberg, whom the Com- intern has associated with Comrade Foster as the best element in our party,.aver that without a “class farm- er-labor party” there is ‘no “class political action.” There is little ex- planation for his so twisting and tor- turing. the political consequences of the decline of capitalism as to make it squeak—‘“I want a farmer-labor party!"”—in view of his previous dis- tinction between the related political conflict of the class and the imme- diate and every day struggles as given in the February Liberator, where he says: “The guiding principle of Com- munist policy... is to use the class struggles growing out of these con- “This does not mean only a cam- paign.on the basic economic issue, which. sharply divides the interests is sufficient to show that Comrade Ruthenberg has, or once had, a pigeon-hole in his mind labeled “Com- munist principles.” But, alas and alack! In continuing the article, on the very next page, out popped the opportunist devil with “a mass farm- er-labor party, which will fight the political battles of the industrial workers and exploited farmers.” Naturally, anybody who says that has little use for the Workers Party and’ can’t see any “political battles” being fought without a “mass farmer- labor party” (now revised to a “class tarmer-labor_ party”) does the fighting —which Communists have always de- clared it wouldn't do. The final retort of the comrades of the minority is that we of the ma- | jority, who wish to deal in no more (fantastic and opportunist farmer-labor parties until we see more masses than they can show, and better reasons than they advance, is that the ma- jority are “sectarians.” I am not very frightened at the term. And I am sure the party, our Workers (Com- Tmunist Party, will correct our erring comrades of the minority by saying, as the Comintern is sure to say, “It is not necessary to be a social-demo- crat in order to avoid being a sec- tarian—or a syndicalist.” By MAX BEDACHT. The Workers (Communist) Party of America is faced with momentous decisions, far more important than the apparent issue would signify. For or against a labor party; that seems to be the question. But in reality the la- bor party is only incidentally the ob- ject of the discussion. The real issue lies deeper. And in justice to the party and to the Communist International we must insist that the fundamental points be dealt with in the discus- sion. The majority, either not under- standing the fundamental points at is- sue, or desirous to keep them out of the discussion, insists to stick to su- perficialities, to hair-splitting and quibbling. Reading the long and shal- About words ’tis easy to dispute, No trouble to believe in words, LIQUIDATION—OF WHAT, AND BY WHOM? ty on political activities, but this in- lustrial work was an aim in itself. In the eyes of these comrades the in- dustrial department of the party was not the auxilliary of the party, but the party became the auxilliary of its industrial department. Whenever Com- rade Pepper or another member of the minority tried to give the indus- trial activities of our party political significance, when motions were made to bring out into clear relief the pur- pose of our industrial activities in the promotion of political action, then the cry Was raised that the minority belittles Industrial action. The pres- ent minority has consistently support- ed Comrade Foster in all his plans for the industrial activities of our party. Comrade Pepper was indefa- tigable in spurring the party on to f 4 low epistles of our majority comrades strongly in that direction. What else slogan embodying the illusion, we |munist veneer which has been laid|™erlabor party” to them, or else{ flicting economic interests to mobil- one becomes convinced that these |More and still more of industrial ac- ~ can it mean when the minority thesis | thereby give up class political action. | over the comrades of these two seem- | there would be no “political action of} ize the forces which will wrest |comrades have taken the advice of | tivities. But in addition to these in- szys: Comrade Ruthenberg even asks: “Is|ingly opposite tendencies, is now | all the workers everywhere.” What a} from the capitalists the state Mephisto serious: dustrial activities there were propos- “If we abandon the united front |the movement for class political action | showing cracks wide enough, that |™aryelous conclusion for a Marxist! | power.” “To eagerly don’t labor for ideas; ed at all times slogans and actions ‘ politically by abandoning the slogan | 2¢ad?” in dealing with the question of | ooking thru the rents of the party Yet there are, to cite one of many| “Syndicalist” Leanings—Once on For if on ideas you're short, to link up the industrial activities “for a class farmer-labor party’. . .” | farmerlabor party. He thinks that | discussion, their remarkable similarity |¢xamples, class war prisoners in the a Time. You surely find a fitting word; with the paramount task of our party. And this paramount task is not, as the majority seems to believe, the industrialization of our party, but ft is And nothing you may rob of words.” | | er-labor party” is based upon “the rock tal connection between the anarchist | 8 ™@ny elsewhere. Sb die sale of the capitalists and the workers—| ‘The party is entitled to know the ned pollticalization of the working foundation” that the intensifying of |S (Communist) Party is the only | ana the social democrat in their con-|th® German Communist Parties have | privately owned industry, operated | racts so it may judge by. them. The |°!48S: the class struggle must mean, politi- poogessotths: pseu ptt Bit ception of what “independent work- |fUnd that amnesty of class war pris-|ror exploitive purposes versus social- fireworks of words—and nothing but But,” says Comrade O'Flaherty, cally, a farmer- party move- ment. We were u the impression that the “rock foundation” of the class struggle was the basis for Communist political action, but never will we ad- mit that farmer-laborism has the same rock foundation as Our own movement. Such a conception is organized confu- sion, behind which the most funda- mental right-wing deviations are smuggled into our movement. Minority Revises the Role of the Party The minority says that the central task of the Workers, (Communist) Party isto build -andther, non-Commu‘ nist. party, They take the position that the Workers Party can only grow if it is an auxiliary to a farmer-labor mise of the “class” farmer-labor party. How Will Masses be Revolutionized: The minority has the right-wing con- ception that the masses will be revolu- tionized by parliamentary and reform- ist politics, It is quite well establis: ed, of course, that Communists must participate in parliamentary action. But when Comrades Lovestone and Ruthenberg tell us in their thesis that the slogan of a farmer-labor party will “revolutionize the broad masses of workers,” we call a halt. This is the worst kind of confusion masking the worst kind of opportunist tendencies. - The masses will not be revolution- ized by a slogan which had nothing of .@ class, nature: init, but the word ing cl: ment for its reformist sins.” party and at the head of our. party.~ Political action” is. Comrade Lenin has said that “Anarchism is a punishment laid upon the labor move- And I was about to add another article to the many I ‘have already written against the I. W. W. conception of “political action’” when—lo ‘and be- land, the dock workers of Frisco, and hold! I find it more needful to write one against the reformist parliament- “4 arism which is showing itself in our successfully around a slogan “for a “Political action means voting and participation in elections and capital- ist parliaments and nothing else,”, say the anarchist leaders of the I. W. W. “We are organized for a political func- tion, which means participation in electoral struggles for the seizure of oners can be made a political issue on which to unite all workers every- where. Mass demonstrations and even such “syndicalist” weapons as the political strike could and should be ‘used in this country for this end. Can the textile workers of New Eng- the West Virginia miners be rallied into a nation-wide movement more class farmer-labor party” or for the slogan “release the class war prison- ers!” Te Comrade Bedacht, these work- ers are ready now, any day, to down tools for the minority thesis, while the millions of farmers, angry, im- patient and armed with shotguns ized. industry operated for service. The conflict between economic groups in capitalist society manifests itself in continuous struggles over imme- diate questions. The workers fight for better wages and working condi- toins. They engage in a struggle against restrictive laws, against in- junctions, the use of armed power of the government against them. . . ‘. These daily struggles are the start- ing point of the Communist struggle for the overthrow of capitalism By entering into all of these struggles, which "grow ‘out of the every day life of the exploited, becoming their spokesmen, winning their confidence, the Communists establish their lead- erghjp of, all those who suffer under words—of the majority shall not suc- ceed in covering up.their own shallow ness and meaninglessness. Comrade Foster, while in Moscow last year, carried on a campaign against the minority with an accusa- tion *that it aad consistently sabotag- ed the industrial work of the party. There was not an iota of justification for this accusation; neither on the basis of facts as contained in the min- utes of the C. E. C., nor on the basis of the activities of the party. But, altho not intentionally, Comrade Fos- ter had put his finger on the sore when he raised that issue. The facts of the matter are that the present majority consistently sabotages the “every struggle of the working class vwainst the capitalists, whether it be in an election campaign or in a strike, is @ political struggle.” Well, Com- rade O'Flaherty, this is “as you see it.” In reality the political potential- ities of a strike are not worth even @ passing mention by a columnist if they are not brought out into the open by systematic action of a revolution- ary party of the workers, by the Com- munists. As long as the application of political power in the strikes is confined to the capitalists, the strike isnot a povitical struggle. It must be made one by conscious action. And the political character of a strike, lies not in the naked fact of the strike itself, but only in the potentialities party, They say that only “the slo-| “class. They will. be reyolutionized and pitchforks ‘are surrounding the |the Whip of capitalism.” political activities of the party. For of the strike in that the ex > Ad ter tus bund ft tater’ | 2 the, process of actual struggle Henarprtavht Wheat ys LaFollette henchmen in the county this: is mivoyed good acai: a nei * dese roe ae potion of the strikes drive home to on pn is for ui up of farmer. i cope of “political action,” and while | work was no 8 Ae parties” ripe dl pies oainngn® against the forces of capitalism on evening of November 20, 1924. He| Stats, demanding, “Give us a class |SCOD' Las position for the Workers Party in this country. 2 wing tendency of the minority. Un- der certain conditions. such slogans and campaigns may have temporary value as they had in the past, but when the minority makes this.a prin- ciple, declaring that only such means - will build the Workers Party without regard to political conditions, then the ‘inist conception of our party as the leader, and reduced..it to: tole of Parasite upon another organization which is to be the real organ of poli- tical struggle. The Leninist concep- tion of the role of the party is tunda- mentally in conflict with the minority. It 1s based upon the conception of the get very far, International. the basis of definite and concrete de- mands. a farmer-labor party, which is a form of united front from ‘above. For the first time in the American movement we are faced with a sys- tematic opportunism, well organized and with some standing in the move- ment, that bids for leadership boldly and frankly on the basis of its op- Portunistic deviations. But it will not ‘The Workers (Commu- nist) Party in its overwhelming ma- jority follows, and desires to continue to follow, the line of the Communist It will rally as one great army to repudiate this oppor- tunist confusion that is presented in the minority thesis. ON DEVIATIONS—SYNDICALIST, SECTARIAN, AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC By HARRISON GEORGE, O one more than myself realizes the fact that in the long and dif- ficult process of building up a Com- munist Party which will be a real Len- inist-Bolshevist party of action, that it is necessary to work with the hu- will show that we haye not > “monolithic, hewn. of one piece,” altho we have hopes of becoming such a party. The digestion of the various ele- ments has now extended over a per- iod of five years. It is time we show- ee The party should be ‘at- tuhed to the necessity of testing the | 1 response of tho material ingested to the line of Communist principles es- Second Caner and determined by the Second Congress of the Comintern. ' No y clearafiéé has ever been attempted or suggested, even of th central organs. The party (I speak of the Workers (Communist) Party and not the farmer-labor party) has drifted along with criminal lack self-examination, The fact that our Possible errors to executive commit- tee sessions out of sight of the party as a whole and issued them as part: instructions which all good Commu- nists obey, Naturally it was not to go on for- ever. Some situation had to arise to shake the party into wakefulness, self- criticism and scrutiny of its ideologi- cal leadership. the present party discussion over the Such a situation is The united front must be ‘based upon such concrete and every- What Lies Behind Farmer-Laborism. Whether or not we shall have us, consciously or unconsciously. See, for example, the generous scorn for a “pure Communist pro- gram” and for the slogan “Forward to the Soviets,” as expressed by Comrade Pollack. Then there is Comrade, Lovestone, who has the same success with Mahoney that Mahoney had with the C. P. P. A, Comrade Lovestone testifies (under Marxian oath as all reformists do who must find Communist ground for mon-Communist action) that when we catch him trying to shove our party into the maw of a petty bourgeois farmer-iabor party, that he is only pulling us out! Yet Comrade Lovestone is so ¢om- pletely a “vulgar parliamentarian” that he cannot see any political move. ment outside of a party, and a farmer- labor party at that! He deigns to mention the Workers Party twice in his article of December 3, in which he says ‘The: comrades (the majority) fo would have us believe that the hun- bility to carry on the le for the overthrowal of capi- reryy program, which is filled with | line in both content and stood for two years, dreds of thousands of farmer-labor- ites of yesterday don’t want and are not interested now in another poli- tical movement.” The Nebuiar Hypothesis of Farmer- Labor Parties. é “Another political movement” is, of course, @ real, genuine, “class” farm- @ veritable cloud of “election allianc- es,” “political siti paigns,” “new parties,” “candidates, “farmer-labor revivals,” ete. A som- nambulist walking in a world of dreams. It is clear that without the ftarmer-labor party slogan, the case o1 “political action” simply doesn’t exist for Comrade Lovestone, sney Ask For Bread—And Gera Slogan, ‘ was clearly supported by Comrade Ruthenberg, who at that meeting ap- farmer-labor party (“‘mass” or “class” rh o| may take your choice), or even whether or n gan for Pa Boone pete ic Seen Seek mkt we oe coming an issue which, tho of grave importance, is exposing the graver issue of whether or not we shall have a Bolsheyist party, or whether we shall be delivered over to a social mocratic morass of “vulgar par liamentarism”—which is where the comrades of the minority are leading er-labor party. And he proceeds in farmer-labor party or give us death!” Nothing else is “political action” to Comrade Bedacht. “As stroyed.” The hext exhibit is Comrade Pow- ell, who is filled with as much re- bellion against centralization and dis- eipline as an anarcho-syndicalist I. W. the majority have “abandoned the united front on the political field” by laying aside the slogan for a defunct “farmer-labor’ party.” Particularly attacked is the T. U, BE. L., which our comrades of the mi- nority discover only when they have to sleuth about for “issues.”- The T. U: BE. L. is “syndicalist” because, tho it advocates a united front of unem- ployed councils directed against the state and federal governments, tho it campaign for a united front for class war prisoners, for a united front against criminal syndicalist laws (we are not yet “criminal” syndicalists to the minority, let us hope), tho the T. U. E. L, advocates mass violation of injunctions, a campaign against race discrimination, tho it urges a united front against imperialism and the Dawes’ plan, still, to Comrade Pow- ell’s mind, “it abandons the politica! field. j 12,000,000 Converts! Quick, The Farm. er-Labor Gun! Could absurdity go further? If it cannot, Comrade Powell can! He says that “our election campaign de- stroyed the LaFollette illusion in the minds of masses of voters and they” (listen to this) “they stayed away from the polls.” He then proceeds to prove that because “only 30 million out of 60 million voters took part in the elections while in 1916 more than 70 per cent voted’—therefore, the dif- ference between 60 and 70 per cent of the electorate, or 12,000,000 voters, were so disgusted with LaFollette be- cause he didn’t give them a “classy farmer-labor party” that they “Perhaps théy voted for Fost will suggest. By no mean were disillusioned with Foster, too, cording to Comrade Powell, and did not vote at all! The Lost Tribes of Farmer-Laborism, ‘Those are the lost tribes with whom Comrade Ruthenberg makes common cause against Comrade Foster, and Comrade Powell wants these 12,000,- 900 dream children to say they didn’t vote for Foster because the Workers ips won't give thom “class politi- cal - establishing whatevs not given with any marvelous clarity, method to initiate, to aid in and to car- © By ALFRED GOETZ. N-an-article on the party contro- versy published by the DAILY WORKER Dee. 3, Comrade Lovestone accuses the majority of the party of imenshevist skepticism. In a rather lengthy’'statement in which he at- tempts to prove that the farmer-labor movement has not been swallowed by LaFollette and that it can be revived, we find the following: Skepticism—A Menshevist Disease. “Thus Lenin in his introduction to ‘Karl Marx, Letters to Kugelmann,’ said, ‘The Marxist doctrine has weld- ed the theory and practice of the class struggle into an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE (caps his). He is no Marx- ist who, to justify existing condition: distorts the theory which soberly con- firms the objective situation, who goes so far as to adapt himself with the greatest possible speed to any temporary lull in the revolution (1), to throw quickly overboard his ‘revo- lutionary illusion’ and to set about collecting the ‘realistic’ shreds.” On which Comrade Lovestone com- ments as follows: “It is a truth long known to Bolsheviks, that only the empiric does not look at developing class conflicts and movements any ‘urther than the horizon of the then siven situation. Amongst mensh: viks,” Comrade Lovestone continues, “skepticism and doubt rise in direct proportion to the drawn out and la- borious character the development of class movements tend to assume.” To all of which we agree and altho we fail to see how this applies to the majority position, it can readily be seen how much more accurately it describes the minority, It is true, Comrade Lovestone, that the com- rades of the majority have doubts and are skeptical of the possibility of re- ntiment of the farmer-labor movement has existed— and with good cause, Since when has it become the function of a Commun- ist Party to organize farmer-labor parties? It is true that it would be our duty to participate in a mass movement of this kind or even in a widespread demand for one, should one exist, but for us to try to organize a non-Communist party which we would ultimately have to combat, and at that when we would have to or- Banize it out of nothing but ourselves and our close sympathizers, is clearly ridiculous, We’ would further ifke to ask the skepticism any movement of this na- ture which if it is to be more than @ paper organjzation must consist of a strong block of trade unions who will make it anything but a real class Movement. It is a well known fact that Communists support and partici- pate in such movements only for the purpose of tearing off their farmer- labor mask and thereby reveal their essential petty bourgeois character to the masses. Or are our comrades of the minority of the opinion that this country is favored with revolutionary labor fakers? When it comes to menshevist skepticism, however, it is the mfhority. who can be charged with that, for it igs they who doubt our Communist party. They doubt, and Lovestone openly states his doubt, that our party will be able to carry on its struggle under its own banner. They are skeptical of the possibilities of our party becoming a mass party unless we assume a disguise or their magic formula of a “Mass, Class Farmer- Labor Party,’ party which would assume all the vital functions of a Communist Party in the everyday struggle, and which would leave no other function for our party than to shout “Onward to the Soviets,” as Silvan A. Pollock stated in an article supporting the minority position. It can be seen from the above that not only the minority thesis but all the articles that have been printed ® support of the minority position ave confessions of disappointment in the Communist Party; are confessions of doubt and menshevist skepticism as to the ability of the party to carry out its Communist task. No matter how good the intentions of the minor- ity may be, the fact remains that it their policies are adopted they will lead to the liquidation of the Workers (Communist) Party, and to the for- mation of a menshevist Two-and-a Halt International left wing group similar to the one which Walton T. jewbold and M. Philips Price in England are trying to establish. Comrades, do not permit yourselves to be fooled. The way to a mass Com- munist movement is not thru a sleight. ot-hand farmer-labor party maneuver. It is only thru the Bolshevization of the party and thru the rank and file taking an active part in the every day struggle that such a movement can be established. We cannot build the party by means of the united front thru negotiations with so-called pro- gressive leaders trom the top but only by creating a united front thru cease- less struggles and activity trom below. ers the necessity of a political strug- gle and thus tend to turn strikes (not every strike, but strikes in general) " : sti ? into political struggles against the _. This is another right-wing deviation, | day struggles, from below, not upon San ar a ins Gls ee for the rest,” he says after Cato, WHO ARE THE MENSHEVIKS? bourgeois state. These struggles will bart and parcel of the general tight-|the abstract organizational slogan of points of parliamentary procedure. “the | syndicalists must be de- then take on many forms and not merely that of political strikes. The task of our party is not to be merely active in the industrial strug- gles of the working class, but it is to develop in all instances the political Potentialities of such struggles. Not merely participation in these strug- gles is our aim, but participation with a purpose. And it is on this point that we invariably collided with the ma- jority. Political slogans in strikes were declared to be out of order, as in the instance of the Garment Work- ers’ strike in Chicago. Instructions that speeches, delivered at certain oc- casions about our demands and slo- gains” should bring out the political scope of these slogans and demands, were Considered-as sabotage of indus- trial work, as in the case of Foster's speech on amalgamation in the Deca- tur convention. In the preparation of convention resolution for trades union conventions everything was conscious- ly eliminated that could raise funda. - mental and political issu In one case for instance such an elimination was made on the ground that if left in, the bureaucrats of the convention may switch the issue to that of Mos- cow agents. — Hs At the bottom of this controversy there is a fundamental difference of conception, This difference makes it- self felt in the consideration’ of all questions. The ‘majority is even con- scious of this difference. But it is careful to conceal it. After the ma- jority has fought in each concrete in- stance the proposals to push to the foreground every political potentiality in economic struggles of the work- ers, the same majority proposes to the Profintern a program containing such demands in almost the identical words of the original minority propos. als. But, after the program js adopt. ed, everything remains as it is. The program {s an alibi, helping the ma- jority, but it does not help the par- ty to increased political activities, The je of Liquidation, The majority, having in its midst an expert on slogans, decided that what its case lacks in quality may be made up in viciousness of its sermons and slogans against the minority, Thus, the well-known slogan of dation was resurrected, polished up and parades as perfectly new and re liable. Let us look at this a little closer, what? | The Workers (Communis ir Who is to ligujdate and