The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 16, 1924, Page 4

' ' i Pace Four fHE DAILY WORKER Discussion o THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE ‘ & By C, E. RUTHENBERG. ‘HH most illuminating test of any Policy is in its application. Judged in the light of such a test the policy “get forth by the majority of the cen- tral executive committee, which it is not only proposing to tbe party but applying in practice at the present time, has already done great harm to our party and threatens the party with even greater injury. In order to make clear the injury which has already been done the Workers Party thru the application of the majority policy and the danger which threatens the party thru the continued application of this policy, it is necessary to restate a few funda- mentals. It is the error of the ma- jority that it is basing its policy upon temporary surface conditions in rela- tion to the movement toward class Political action and not upon the stronger, underlying forces which haye produced and are developing this movement. The movement for independent political action by the workers as a class has been slow in developing in the United States. While practically every developed capitalist country of Europe has had class political parties of labor supported by masses for de- cades, in the United States no such party has developed. The historical reasons why no such party has devel- oped in the United States have often been stated and I need not go into them here. The fact which we have to deal with is, that since the end of the war, thru the intensification of the class struggle which has grown out of the war, a movement by the work- ers and at the same time a movement by the exploited farmers, toward in- dependent political action and for the formation of a party representing the class interests of these two groups, has arisen. The fact which we must bear in mind in discussing the question of our party policy is, that this movement is not a chance thing growing out of temporary conditions which may quickly disappear. As Marxians we recognize that the development of a movement among the working masses toward a political class struggle is a logical and inevitable outcome of class relations under the capitalist system. It was upon the basis of the fact that this movement had begun and was developing that our party, two and a half years ago, formulated its united front labor party policy. What was the problem which we as Com- munists, organized in the revolution- ary Workers Party, faced at that time? We had organized the vanguard of the working class, the revolutionists, the Communists. in our party, but the masses of the American workers were still supporting the parties of their class enemies—the capitalists. Our aim was to build our party of the vanguard, of the revolutionary workers into a mass Communist Party. We rejected the theory that our party could be built into a mass Communist Party thru abstract propa- ganda of.our principles. We accepted the Communist concept that a revolu- tionary mass party of Communists can only be created thru the revolution- ization of the working masses. We saw the beginning of the process of the revolutionization of the working masses in the movement for inde- pendent political action. We argued: In this movement to- ward independent political action by the workers and exploited farmers there is our point of contact with these masses. We will enter into this movement. We will endeavor to hasten the development of this move- ment. We will seek to become the leaders of this movement and thru our leadership we will make it more con- scious and drive it forward. We will crystallize this movement by organiz- img delegated bodies consisting of delegates from the organizations of workers and exploited farmers who become politically conscious of their class interests. We will enter into common struggles, not merely election campaigns but struggles upon all is- sues arising in the class struggle, with these workers and exploited farmers, struggles in which we will play the part of the initiators and driving force. Thru this policy we will fulfill our duty as a Communist Party—we will be catrying on the work of revo- lutionization of the masses and in the Process we will build our party into @ mass party of revolutionary workers. The slogan which we raised to ex- press the crystallization of the move- ment for independent political action was, “For a farmer-labor party,” and later, when the LaFollette movement took form, in order to sharply distin- guish our aim from the petty bour- geoisie character of the latter, “For a “lens farmer-laber party.” This slogan Nistorically and thru the content we have given it has come to stand for the first step in the revolutionization of the working masses, the develop- ment of political action on the basis of their class interests. In my article in the Workers Monthly, directed against the policy majority of the central execu- five committee, I asked, in consider- ing the present situation of the move- ment toward independent political ac- tion described above: “Is the move- ment toward class political action dead?” Various supporters of the C. MAJORITY POLICY central executive committee majority have risen to give the childish an- swer: “Of course not, because the Workers Party is not dead.” Such a silly answer shows a lack of under- standing of the whole problem. We are not considering in the party dis- cussion whether there exists in the United States a Communist Party which has as its aim the mobilization of the working masses for a revolu- itonary class struggle against the capitalist state power. It ought ‘not to be necessary to remind ourselves of that fact in every second sentence. We are considering thru what strat- egy and tactics can our Communist Party revolutionize the masses and thus build itself. It seems, however, that for the supporters of the majority thesis it is necessary to formulate the question in every detail, thus: Is the mass movement. toward class political action, which has developed in the United States thru the intensi- fication of the class struggle since the end of the war, dead? The minority thesis emphasizes that the economic conditions which produced this movement do not only exist but will be intensified and will produce éven a greater movement for class political action. The majority agrees that the economic conditions which developed the movement still exist and will be intensified, but that | the movement of the workers and ex- | ploited farmers resulting therefrom has been “swallowed up” or “come to rest” in the non-class, third party La- Follette moyement, and that the slogan, “For a class farmer-labor party,” has lost its potency as a means of developing class political action on a mass scale, and for build- ing the Workers Party in the process of developing such class political action. With this review of basic reasons for our policy and the forces under- lying the movement for class political action we are in a position to apply the test of actual application to the present situation of the policies pro- posed in the central executive com- mittee majority and minority theses, and thus come to a conclusion as to the present potency of the “For a class farmer-labor party” slogan for the development of class political ac- tion and the building of our party. The A. F. of L. Convention. The question of independent politi- cal action by labor was an issue in the A. F. of L. convention. The Pot- ters, Molders and Stonecutters, three international unions, had resolutions before the convention calling for the endorsement of the formation of a labor party. That in itself is good |Proof that the movement for the for- mation of a labor party is not dead. ‘What was the position of the ma- jority of the central executive com- mittee? It voted down the proposal of the central executive committee minority that we introduce and cham- pion a resolution calling for the for- mation of a class farmer-labor party. In place of such a resolution it proposed a resolution calling for a general labor congress. The minority | proposed an amendment to the gen- eral labor congress resolution, that there be inserted as one of the points of the program of such a general labor congress the formation of a farmer-labor party. Two or three weeks later, as an afterthought, the majority inserted in its general labor congress resolution a clause calling for support of the Workers Party. What was the consequence of this abandoning of the slogan “For a class farmer-labor party”? The Molders, the Potters, the Stonecutters appeared at the A. F. of L. convention as the exponents of independent political action by labor, the general labor congress resolution was not heard from and the Workers Party abdi- cated its position as leader of the movement of the workers toward class political action. Which course would have brought the greatest results for building the Workers Party, the introduction of a meaningless general labor congress resolution in which no one was inter- ested and which was in no way a live question, or a militant espousal be- fore the convention by our party of the slogan “For a class farmer-labo: party?” Which tactic would have promoted most what is and must be our major strategy, to develop class Political action, and eventually revo- lutionary political action by the worker? The question answers itself. The tactics in the A. F, of L. is point one indicating the bankruptcy of the ma- jority of the central executive com- mittee The Massachusetts C. P. P. A. On Saturday, Dec 13, a telegram was received by Comrade Foster from Comrade Ballam, advising that the conference for progressive political action was holding a convention in Massachusetts to which quite a num ber of members of the Trade Union Educational League and party mem- bers had been elected as delegates trom their unions ‘The telegram further advised that a conference of the members of the Trade Union Edu- cational League in Boston the mem- bers had voted to introduce a resolu- tion in the C. P. P. A. convention calling for the formation of a class farmer-labor party, and if the resolu- tion was defeated to lead a split from | f Our Par the convention of all the elements favoring the formation of such a party The majority of the central execu- tive committee sent instructions to Comrade Ballam that the resolution for a class farmer-labor party must not be introduced but that a resolu- tion criticizing the LaFollette move- ment as a petty bourgeoisie movement and calling for endorsement of the Workers Party be introduced. The minority of the central executive committee proposed that our policy be to introduce a resolution for a class farmer-labor party, and split if it was defeated and organize group splitting eway into a provisional com- mittee to carry on a campaign against the C. P. P. A. and LaFolletteism in the Massachusetts trade unions. Here again we have proof, first, that the movement for a class farmer- labor party is not dead. If a consid- erable number of delogates can .be elected from the Massachusetts trade unions pledged to fight a farmer-labor party against the C. P. P. A. and La- Foletteism thatisthe best evidence of the potency of the slogan. Second, we have again the bankruptcy of the central executive committee majority policy for the central executive com- mittee majority did not and could not, following its policy, give any organi- zational expression to demand for class political action of the trade unions represented in the C. P. P. A. convention The Minnesota Situation. In the Minnesota the Farmer-Labor Federation was organized largely thru the efforts of our party, as a means of giving expression to class’ party elements in the Minnesota farmer- labor party. The petty bourgeois elements in the Minnesota farmer- labor party are at present waging a campaign to throw the Communists out of the Farmer-Labor Federation. What is the policy of the central ex- ecutive committee majority? It has not dared to make a declaration of policy on this situation. If it follows the logic of its thesis it will volun- tarily withdraw our members from the Farmer-Labor Federation and thus isolate us from the mass movement of workers and exploited farmers in Minnesota, and thus make another confession of bankruptcy. Incidental- ly, it might be mentioned that it is in Minnesota, where we have been most active in the farmer-labor party, that our party polled proportionally the largest number of votes for the Work- ers Party presidential ticket. ‘That in itself is good evidence of the effec- tiveness of the farmer-labor party campaign for building the strength and influence of the Workers Party. The Coming C. P. P. A. National Convention The strongest evidence of the bank- ruptey of the policy of the central executive committee majority comes to light in the application of its policy to the situation we will be faced in relation to the coming convention of the C. P. P, A. The national com- mittee of the C. P. P. A. has called a national convention to be held in Chicago on Feb 21 for the purpose of organizing the third party. The third party is not yet organized. It merely built machinery for an election cam- paign. The issuance of the call for the convention Feb, 21 brings the question of the form of political action which the workers and farmers are to take before every trade union and organization of exploited farmers in the United States in the sharpest form imaginable. In every such or- ganization this issue will be fought out. For the next two months the issue of independent political action, of a LaFollette third party or a farm- er-labor party, will be the biggest question which will come before the trade union’ and organizations of farmers. Monday, December 15, 1924 ty’s Immediat What are our tactics in this situa- tion? The only tactic possible under the policy of the central executive committee majority is to offer resolu- tions for the endorsement of the Workers Party against the call for the C. P. P. A. convention, Endorsements of the Workers Party are very fine, but in the first place they will be few and far between, and secondly, they will leave us in the same position that we are left in by the paper en- dorsements of amalgamation by two million trade union members which Comrade Foster boasts about. We cannot affiliate trade unions and farm organizations with the Workers Party. Our party as a Communist Party is based upon individual membership. It is a utopian notion to believe that we can during this campaign move more than a few thousand of the quarter or a half million members of the trade unions and farm organiza- tions who might be put on record against the LaFollette third party and for a class farmer-labor party thru a militant campaign by our party, to join the Workers Party as individual members. It is a Communist tactic to build a united front in order to enter into a common struggle with such organiza- tion. The farmer-labor party slogan expresses the form of the united front we can build with the elements which we could win in such a campaign against LaFolletteism. The raising of the slogan of “For a Class Farmer- Labor Party” would be our most effec- tive means for fulfilling our major task, the development of class politi- cal action and our campaign in sup- port of that slogan would do more to build the Workers Party than any number of sterile resolutions for the endorsement of the Workers Party. It is only necessary to study the situation as here outlined in regard to the C. P. P. A. convention to see that the policy of the central execu- tive committee majority is sectarian- ism and a repudiation of the united front tactic in relation to the most significant development of the Ameri- can labor movement, the movement toward class political action The central executive committee majority says: Oh, but we propose united front on other questions, un- employment, child labor, ete. Well and good. We have had such united front and we must continue to enter such campaigns as often as possible, but such united front campaigns are not an answer to the requirements of the development of the movement for class political action. The C. P. P. A.- LaFollette movement is offering an organizational crystallization to work- ers and farmers organizations in the folds of the petty bourgeoisie third party. Shall we abandon the field and permit this crystallization to take place? That is what the abandon- ment of the slogan “For a Class Farmer-Labor Party” means, The raising of the slogan means to offer to the most conscious elements a crystallization around the rkers Party in a united front organization. The central executive committee ma- jority policy abdicates our leadership and hands it over to LaFollette, to permit the workers and exploited farmers to remain “at rest,” in the third party. The few facts cited show where the central executive committee majority policy is leading us to. It is taking us out of the main stream of the movement for class political action by the workers and exploited farmers which has sprung out of the life ex- periences of these classes in new epoch of capitalism brought by the world war. The majority policy spells bankruptcy both in leadership in de- veloping class political action by the working masses and in building up our party into a mass Communist Party. Saab Pat et ee it eee ee nihil talaidlge ciety A QUESTION OF LENINIST LEADERSHIP By H. M. WICKS, INCE efforts to apply the united front on the parliamentary field have proved too difficult for the poli- tical leadership of the Foster-Cannon group of the central executive commit- tee and since a frank admission of their blunders would prove their un- doing as leaders, they now endeavor, by decree, to abolish the farmer-labor movement so they will no longer be required to test their ability in. this field. A few more experiences such as the party has endured lately would soon expose their incompetency to even the merest novice in the party, so they are determined to take no more chances. _ Their action is the first time in the history of the movement, to my knowledge, that leaders of a party have tried to exorcise a thing simply because they found it inconvenient for their purpose. Such efforts have been made elsewhere, but not in the labor movement. The most notable historical endeavor in this line was when the pope of Rome issued a bull against the appearance of Haley’s comet, When astronomers predicted, with mathematical accuracy, that the comet would appear, His Holines: consigned them to the infernal re- gions. But tho he forbade the appear- ance of the comet, he lived to learn that natural forces have a habit of contemptuously ignoring the whims of individuals, even tho it come in con- flict with holy writ. We are convinced that the decree of the majority, exorcising the ftarmer- availing against _historico-economic forces as was the bull of the pope against natural phenomena, Further- more, we assert that just as the comet ignored the pope, so the de- velopment of a class labor party in the United States will proceed in spite 4 the delusions of the majority thes- is. From the Bottom Up, The majority favors abandoning the struggle to create a farmer-labor party and asserts that it will devote its time to applying the united front “from the bottom.” But, tho we do apply the united front from the bot- tom, is that any valid reason for scrapping the slogan for a labor party? A perusal of the thesis and polemics of the majority is illuminating in this connection, inasmuch as it reveals their whole conception in relation to the labor party united front and ex- Plains their signal failure properly to carry out a Communist policy in their maneuvers during the eleven months of their control of the party, Whereas the present minority, last year known as the Pepper group, viewed the united front as a mags movement from the bottom and exert- ed great efforts to gain influence over the majority of the rank and file of labor, the Foster-Cannon group devot- ed its time to compromises, negotia- tions and vacillations with the so- called left leaders of labor. Let us review, briefly, a bit of history, I will cite the two instances of cre- ating labor parties that I was charg- ed with directing for the then central Qe ————— j ganization of the Buffalo labor ‘party was distinctly a movement from the bottom. Instead of dickering with the labor leaders, the Buffalo comrades assisted me in reaching every local union in the city. We went direct to the rank and file, appearing night af. ter night before scores of local unions and, after winning them to our posi- tion, deliberately forced the politi- cians of the central labor cogncil to yield to our demands. The result was a real united front party embrac- ing over 50,000 organized workers and composed of the local trade unions, a number of workmen’s fraternal so- cieties and the Workers Party. To- day, according to information at hand from Comrade James C. Campbell, the leader of that party, there is a demand for its revival, which tends to discredit the claim that LaFollette swallowed the whole movement. Secondly, the creation of the Min- nesota farmer-labor federation, which was assigned to me by the ©. E. C. was, for the most part, a movement from the bottom. During the time I was in Minnesota, our comrades lined up many of the local unions and oth- er organizations in support of the creation of such a movement, and succeeded in winning influence and membership for our party. The rank and file support was the basis of our negotiations with Mahoney and oth- ers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Un- fortunately some of the Minnesota comrades, who are now in the ma- jority, entirely lost sight of the rank and file support and considered the end and aim of the movement as based upon the success of placating Ma- honey. The Minnesota comrades will well remember my vigorous objection to the refusal of our delegates to take issue with Mahoney on the question of sending delegates to a proposed convention of the federated farmer- labor party that was to have been held in Chicago the early part” of this year. In spite of my instructions to the-contrary those enamored of the united front from the top, refused to fight for this measure at the Sep- tember, 1923 convention that organiz- ed the Minnesota farmer-labor federa- tion. Both Buffalo and Minnesota were bona fide movements from the bot- tom up and were real, and not imagin- ary, organizations. That may not have been the case with all our labor party organizations. The majority claims such was not the case with others, but they cannot dispute the fact that in these two instances the motivating force came from the bottom under our direction. As a matter of fact, some of the majority brazenly proclaim the fact that they organized “fake” labor parties. If that is true, they’ con- cealed the fact from the membership by numerous subterfuges. Such ad- missions are distinctly shocking to those who take the movement serious- ly and consider the future of the move- ment rather than the temporary vic- tory of a faction in the party. With such admissions as this, how is the working class to judge us in the fu- ture? I, for one, refuse to malign our party with the charge that we did organize “fake labor parties.” That unenviable achievement may remain the distinction of the majority, but it never came to my notice, as a mem- ber of the former C. E. C., otherwise there would have been an explosion, United Front With Leaders, There was certainly a serious er- ror made in the Minnesota situation because some of our leading local com- rades had too much confidence in Ma- honey, an attitude I personally warn- ed them against. Their error, how- ever, was not confined to them alone but was shared by the present ma- jority of the C. E. C. After the or- ganization of the farmer-labor federa- tion the center of gravity of the labor party movement shifted to Minnesota and finally culminated in the June 17 convention, At that convention every effort was made to conciliate Mahoney and Co, “Splitting tactics,” according to the majority, were decisively repudiated. Pepperism, which was responsible for the split at the July 3, 1923, conven- tion at Chicago, was deeply buried. The majority bitterly complained about the split with Fitzpatrick at Chicago. They were determined that there would be no further splitting on their part. The majority failed to understand the united front, They failed to per- ceive that there must inevitably come a time when splits are necessary, e: pecially when dealing with leaders. Some of them will go a short distance with us, others quite far. But on the path of revolution there inevitably comes a time when even the most sympathetic must make the choice be- tween going forward with us or back- aries, Failure to estimate the decisive moment is frequently fatal. So anxious were the majority to maintain unity with the leaders that they completely forgot the masses on the outside, So depressed were they after the Chicago convention that they made no serious effort to consolidate the brilliant victory of our party at federated farmer-labor party. When, a short time after the convention at Chicago, Comrades Ruthenberg,. Pep- per and the present minority advocat- ed taking energetic steps building the federated, as soe 4 ward into the camp of the reaction-| that convention by building up the movement thru which we could wiala “ Tasks \ and bring thousands upon thousands of workers under our influence, we were bitterly opposed by the Foster- Cannon group. It is precisely this policy of trading with leaders, of yielding to their de- mands, of failure prowerly to apply the united front that did dominate and still dominates the majority’s con- ception of this tactic in relation to the labor party movement. Since, in their labor party tactics, they never attempted to build the united front from the bottom, they imagine it can- not be achieved. That is why they visualize any movement for a farmer- labor party as the united front “from the top.” But because they themselves failed to carry out the united front from be- low is no good reason why they should accuse the Marxian group in the party of inability to apply this tactic cor- rectly, Error Still Prevails. Because, in this election, the lead- ers of labor were able to swing the farmer-labor movement behind LaFol- lette the majority then proclaims to the world that LaFollette has swal- lowed the whole farmer-labor party movement. Again they see the actions of the leaders and fail to perceive the movement of the masses, Since the leaders went into the LaFollette camp the majority asserts that the movement has been annihilated, or that it will rest for a long time con- tent with LaFollette, altho admitting in their thesis that industrial depres- sion, which forms the economic basis for such movements, will intensify in the near future. Here is revealed a faith in the abil- ity of leaders)to control whole move- ments that is appalling. The majority actually believes in the ability of lead- ers to divert the labor movement in- to channels at variance with the eco- nomic conditions in which it func- tions. The leaders have misled the workers into the LaFollette camp where they have been swallowed. This is proclaimed in the thesis of the ma- jority. It.is defended in their pole- mics, - In their thesis they assert that “1925 holds the prospect of repeating the experiences of 1920-21, when 6,000,000 workers were unemployed.” Majority Leninism. The majority pays lip service to Leninism; always admonishing the members to Bolshevize the party. Yet the essense of Leninism is realism in a given situation. Every Marxist (and therefore, every Leninist) knows that periods of industrial crises: furnish the bases for the rise of working class political parties. We know that the workers, no longer able to achieve vic- tories thru their trade unions, turn to parliamentary action, so long as they are under bourgeois-democratic illu- ? | influence as a Communist vanguard | sions. This has been and is the case in every capitalist country in the world. Yet the majority, admitting that the crisis will intensify, admitting also that vast masses of farmers and workers did break away from the two old parties because of the prevailing economic conditions, claims that the workers will not in the future react to those conditions as they have in the past. No longer will a given eco- nomic condition produce a given re- flex, but something entirely different. And ail this just because LaFollette has swallowed the whole movement! In such a conception of historical movements there is not a scintilla of Marxism. With what withering scorn did Marx excoriate those participants in the February action of 1848 in Ger- many who explained their failure on the grounds that leaders had betray- ed them. The important task is dis- covering how the betrayal was pos- sible. The political immaturity of the masses, the recent emerging of the United States from a predominantly agricultural country to a condition where the majority of the population are wage workers in industry, the weight of traditions of the past, the utter confusion between the third par; ty movement and the labor party movement all are ignored or minimiz- ed. The workers fell for LaFollette and there they will remain. — The bete noire, the malignant mon- ster, that has stifled the farmer-labor movement is LaFollette. This concep- tion on the part of the majority is not accidental, nor is it new in their “theoretical” arsenal. It is the same erroneous notion that attributes the failure of the revolution in central Europe solely to the treachery of Riga is in Latvia. It is first o| wolves, from Riga. And so in, the us that the Soviet is It’s quite DAILY WORKER, would surely? Then buy your | Latune Fee the lead while ignoring other fac- of Rom : SAY RIGA—AND WE DOUBT! 4 —_———_ tors, especially the war-exhaustion ot fhe masses. So also is it part and parcel of that delusion that the pathe- tic condition of the American labor movement can be attributed to Daniel DeLeon’s duel unionism. It is an fi» dividualistic non-Marxism conception of historical movements. ‘The Task of Leadership. In such a situation as the present we have the real test of leadership. Are we, as Communists, going to stand aside and permit the same ele- ments that led the workers into i LaFollette movement to maintain con- trol over them? Shall we surrender the leadership for a class party of la- bor exclusively to them? Here the Foster-Cannon ‘group demogogically bellows: “There is al- ready a class labor party—the Work- ers (Communist) Party.” Of course, we are a class party. We are the revolutionary party of the working class in this country, the par- ty that must eventually secure lead- ership of the masses and lead them to the final assault against capitalism. But that does not mean there cannot also be a labor party composed of groups of workers that can be stamp- ed as a distinctly class party, On a local scale the Buffalo labor party was such a party.. Can anyone deny that it was a class party? Also did not our party function more effectively with- in it than ever before? No honest per- son can deny that! And our relation to that party was the same as our relation ought to be to a class farmer- labor party—we were the vanguard, If the movement to revive the Buf- falo labor-party now exists, can any+ one claim that it is not our duty to try to accelerate it? If the question comes up again should our comrades in the central labor council arise and invite the affiliated unions to join the Workers Party? To state the ques- tion is to realize its absurdity. That party was based upon trade unions;) a group organization composed of members of the working class. Our party is a Communist Party based up- on individual membership of thése who accept our principles and‘ pro- gram. Thruout the nation there are many symptoms of breaks within the La- LaFollette movement. Many farmer-la- bor groups claim that LaFollette has hindered rather than helped them and they are preparing for a break. If any appreciable number of such or- ganizations break away, should not we, as the vanguard of the working — class, endeavor to galvanize them in-| to a class labor party? Must we not, as a matter of Communist strat- egy, help them break. To claim that just because they stand for a class labor-party they can also be brought into the Communist movement is absurd. They still suf- ° fer from a blind faith in the efficacy of parliamentary action; they still be- lieve the capitalist state an instru- ment thru which they can achieve their aims. It is our mission to dis- pel these illusions. How are we to proceed about this task? In their arguments the majority as- serts that we will achieve this by par- ticipating exclusively in the various other applications of the united front and wait for the mass movement of the workers toward the farmer-labor party to develop. In ‘plain words we: must wait until such a party is ac- tually in process of formation, then we will take our places at the head of the procession and solemnly assure them we are their leaders—the van- guard. Surely we would presume too much if we expected them to take our attitude seriously on such an oc- gasion. Should we tell them we were waiting for them to discover the ror of their way they would laugh at us. Yet that is the wonderful strategy of the majority. What a pitiable, a puerile conceptionof Communism! The function of a Marxian, a Lenin- ist, leadership is to carefully analyze economic conditions and be able to anticipate the movement of the mass- es in response to these conditions. Not to wait until the movement has developed spontaneously, but to under; stand its direction and endeavor to develop it along lines favorable to the revolutionary movement. In the present controversy the mi- nority can rest assured that history is on our side and that the forces that are now developing in the womb of social forces in this country, will furnish the final refutation of the Fos- ter-Cannon illusion, just as surely the comet justified the contentions the astronomers against the ime here that we find one of the - utposts of the whites, the counter-revolutionaries who await the overthrow of Soviet Russia like a pack of hungry i It is the whites that inspire news dispatches that come dispatch told other day,.a Riga ussian situation, that - at the hard times and discontent may cause revolt. ‘ fortunate that we have isn’t it? It gives us the truth about our side in this str: for erg? of the world. You wouldn't want to lose the - R dat You'd like ISURANCE POLICY and the DAILY WORKER, _ make it safe, Haake Ms