The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 17, 1924, Page 3

| _Wednesday, December 17, 1924 i HE DAILY WORKER Page Three ‘Discussion. of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks UPON ONE POLICY WE ARE ALL UNITED Menacing Symptoms By ALEXANDER BITTELMAN Tf you want to know what the real position of the minority is, read the articles of the followers of the minor- ity and not of the leaders. The lat- ter are sufficiently trained in party @ontroversies to know what not to say. The leaders of the minority, whatever their Marxism and Bolshe- vist, have been long enough in our movement to understand that certain things are simply incompatible with @ Communist conception of our tasks. But the followers don’t know all these things, and when they attempt to ex- Presa an opinion as to what they un- derstand the position of the minority te be, they frankly and openly tell the whole truth. It is therefore, thru these open statements of the followers of the minority that we Fearn of the really menacing nature of the minority position. Capitalism is in Existence, Therefore We Must have a Farmer-Labor Party Read the article by Comrade W. J. White, entitled “The Defeatist Thesis of the Majority,” published in the DAILY WORKER on Dec. 11. Read it carefully and try to understand the psychology of the comrade. He is g0 much overwhelmed with the magic slogan of the minority that he simply ,@annot imagine the class-struggle in America without a farmer-labor party. To him class-struggle and farmer- --labor party have become one and the game thing. His reasoning runs, there- fore along a short, straight line. If you are opposed to the farmer-labor slogan, you are opposed to the class- struggle. I maintain that when Com- » munists get into such a state of mind, ;there must be something radically “wrong with them. Listen to the question that Comrade » White asks of the majority: ~ “Has this election (presidential election) given the landless farmers back their land? Has the pressure of capitalism been removed from the » shoulders of the proletariat in the mills and mines? Is the robbery of these workers any less today than it was before the votes were cast?” This is. the question. You would imagine by the nature of the question ‘that Comrade White is trying to con- vert a worker in his shop to the idea of clase-struggle, You might also imagine that Comrade White is try- ing to prove the existence of capital- ism and the necessity for an organ- ized struggle against it. And, finally, you might also get the idea that Com- rade White is putting up this question in order to: prove the necessity of the Workers (Communist) Party as the only possible leader of the proletarian struggle against capitalism. But, no! This is not Comrade White's intention. Comrade White has already outgrown the illusion that the Workers (Communist) Party is the leader of the proletarian struggle against capitalism. Comrade White knows better. He has another party— 8 farmer-labor party—to conduct these struggles. Comrade White shouts at the majority the above question in or- der to destroy the majority thesis which denies the usefulness of the farmer-labor slogan in the given situa- tion. Comrade White is not a defeatiat. No, Hg is buoyant, hopeful, and op- timistic for the farmeMabor party. But the C, EB. C. is defeatist because it is buoyant, hopeful and optimistic for the Workers (Communist) Par- ty. This is the substance of Comrade White's article. Diluted Communism for the Masses le Anton Bimba is following the minority. He published an article in the Daily (December 10th) entitled “Where do You Stand?” And among other things, this is what he vays: “By raising the slogan ‘for a farm- er-labor party’, which is much easier for the mi to digest at the present time,-we, the Workers Par- ty and under the name of the Work- ers Party immediately advance to them and acquaint them with the leadership of the Workers Party.” Comrade Bimba may not know it as yet, but a litle thought will convince him to the truth of the following pro- position; That the position of the Inority is nothing else but a proposal fool the masses into following our leaaaxsh'P by giving ourselves another name, on to bg — the “mnaves, Wil digest easier the slogan “fore farmer-labor party” than they oma the slogan “for a Communist o ost @ weapon every component part of which we tested and proved. « pensesdown to the bare bone. Service to the working clase—absolute os maximum. Attacks upon the enemy—the Ilmit. For nearly a year we »\ Ihave labored unceasingly with a bucket of red paint in one hand, and *-@ large-sized brush in the other, te FOR HELP! But today we shout, Party.” The difference here is mer- ely in name, isn’t it? Because the slogan “for a farmer-labor party” is raised by whom? By the Workers Par- ty. Who is going to advocate it and fight for it? Again, the Workers Par- ty. Now, then, why does it not en- ter Comrade Bimba’s mind that, un- der these conditions, the slogan “for a farmer-labor party” will immediately become indentified with the slogan “for a Communist Party,” and that whatever objections the masses have to following the lead of the Workers Party these masses will equally have to following the lead of the farmer- labor party. Comrade Bimba knows that this is so. Only he believes that somehow and in some mysterious way the sound “farmer-labor” will be more Pleasing to the ears of the masses than the sound “Workers Party.” It is very, very funny. We seem to be reaching a stage when our policies are to be determined by musical mys- teries instead of by an analysis of so- cial forces and political situations. The logic of the minority, expressed very simply by Comrade Bimba, is merely this: The combination of the words farmer-labor will be digested by the masses easier than the com- bination of another group of words. Therefore, a farmer-labor party. And, mind you, Comrade Bimba is not totally blind to facts. He sees, for instance, the important fact “that a jsreat many workers voted for Mr. LaFollette because they were told and they themselves believed that they were voting for independent political action.” In other words, those work- ers who felt the need for a new party believe that the LaFollette movement is going to bring them that party. Comrade Bimba will have to agree that these workers are wrong only in one thing, namely, in their expecta- tion that a LaFollette party will be beneficial to the workers. But how are you going to disabuse the minds of the workers from this illusion? Surely not by preaching the ab- stract idea of a class farmer-labor. Why? Because to advocate now a farmer-labor party as against a LaFol- lette party is the same as advocating the Communist Party. And if the slogan “for a Communist Party” can have no mass appeal how will a Com- munist farmer-labor party have such an appeal? Comrade Bimba would do well to read again the thesis of the C. E. C. He will find there that the way to drive a wedge between the workers and LaFollette is not by advocating another name for the Workers Party, but by mobilizing the masses for struggle for such economic and politi- cal demands as will expose LaFollet- te’s hostility to the workers, Not by changing names but by engaging in IN ALL THIS TIME WE HAVE NOT SENT OUT A SINGLE CALL elementary struggles will you raise the consciousness of the American workers and build your own party, LaFollette is “Already” Discredited. You, comrades, may not know it that “the LaFollette movement is al- ready discredited in many ways,” but Comrade Candela knows. He says so in his article, “Why I am for the Minority,” published in the Daily on December 1ith. Now, this is a totally different proposition. If the class-struggle in the United States has gone so far as to discredit in many ways the LaFol- lette movement in the eyes of the workers, then we are actually nearing a revolutionary situation in America. Comrade Candela simply failed to draw the proper conclusions from his analysis of the political situation. The Communist International ad- heres to the following theory that when the petty-bourgeois, reformist illusions become discredited, or are beginning to become discredited in the eyes of the workers, this is a sure sign of the begining of a revolution- ary situation. Comrade developing revolutionary situation, for Anstance, for a farmer-labor ment, instead of for a farmer-labor party, The followers of the minority have a difficult task to perform. hing have got to re-educte themselves er-laborism into pweettd ig sooner they do it the better for Cor munism and for the Communist Par. ty. FIRST CALL FOR HELP We have built. For nearly a year we have painstakingly fashioned HELP YOUR DAILY, and that is to Lrtur0 Tee Sail, Uorker nr 2s 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 ig an all the year around weapon against the foe, it is an educator, it is a@ propagandist—and also, 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. do this we must give our dollars generously today. 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. To 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. CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, William 2, Foster, Chairman, Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary. ILLINOIS EXPERIENCE SUBSTANTIATES THE MAJORITY POSITION By ARNE SWABECK. T the height of our farmer-labor maneuvers, we organized the Illinois labor party. It was made to order like most of such parties were. Altho, even at a time when there was a movement making toward the form- ation of such party, the Illinois labor party never succeeded in rallying great masses of workers despite the sincere efforts for a united front dis- played by our comrades, Neverthe- less, it became recorded in our annals as another “conquest.” To our party the dangers were great in this experiment; the advantages were nil. Farmer-labor parties with- out mass support do not offer a field for maneuvering to broaden and deep- en the struggles of the workers and our participation therein tends to seriously obscure the Communist aim in the class struggle, even from the view of our own comrades. The Illinois labor party had to be extremely carefully nursed for fear that it would remain still-born. The provisional committee launched to form the party invited all labor and fraternal organizations of the state to participate. Some 3,000 local organiz- ations were invited. About 30 local ‘unions responded, of which 25 were of the United Mine Workers, some workmen’s circle branches and other fraternal groups. With few excep tions the delegates who attended the Peoria convention, at which the party was formed, and who had also fought in their locals to put the response across, were either Workers Party members or close sympathizers. The fact that this convention was arrang- ed simultaneously with, and in the same city as the convention of the United Mine Workers, District 12, helped to bring the delegates there. And naturally, great care had to be used to retain these few non-sympa- thizing elements, in order to maintain the farmer-labor appearance, which was destined to rally the masses. Care became so much more neces- sary because immediately upon the issuance of the call for the formation of the party, it became branded by the reactionary trade union officials as another attempt to split the labor movement and to form another “branch of the Communist Party,” and one Chicago carpenters’ local union even withdrew its elected dele- gates. The situation was delicate. To really interest the delegdtes—ex- ceptions as well as party members and sympathizers—and the unions which had responded to the necessity of the labor party it became necessary to attribute to it the qualities of fight- ing the battles of the workers and to make it appear the real leader in the class struggle, It was a natural opportunistic outcome of our general opportunist method of applying the united front tactics in this movement, We were faced with a practical problem, We attempted to form a state farmer-labor party and the out- come corresponded with the material conditions available, The program adopted, altho an improvement over the many which our party at the time was manufacturing wholesale, ex- pressed not only the dangerous illu- sion of @ parliamentary egret One delegate at the convention the statement in 4 committee that, in considering the program, one vital point was overlooked, namely, a farmer-labor party was quite a sim- ple matter. Our immediate practical experience amounted to this. Our’ farmer-labor party united front was at its very best a parliamentary unity. The Illi- nois labor party was organized while the old farmer-labor party (Fitzpatrick group) was still in existence. There could be little difference between the two as long as the farmer-labor ve- neer had to be maintained. The rank and file workers could discern no dif- ference, except that the Illinois labor party had been branded Communist and we appeared as the splitters of the labor movement who had to have our own little labor party the same as the Fitzpatrick group. The old farm- er-labor party was discredited. The Illinois labor party never succeeded in rallying the masses of workers and farmers; it not give our party connection with the wide masses. The only active section keeping the Illi- nois labor party alive for the period of its duration was the Workers Party; it- paid the bills. The sym- pathetic elements took part because of the Workers Party and could just as easily have been rallied for the struggle directly under our own ban- ner. The Mlinois labor party seemed to fit the description of the thing the minority proposes to rear, the “left block radical farmer-labor party,” and yet the short experience was enough to demonstrate that such party could never give class political leadership or fight for the class interests of the workers, as also being proposed by the minority. Such leadership can be furnished only by a centralized, disciplined party, based upon individ- |ual membership, united ideologically {for a common goal—a Communist Party. The Illinois labor party like all other such parties would have been shattered at the first pressure of a real struggle. It could not even with- stand the pressure from the appear- ance of LaFollette on the stage. It disappeared. Today it is non-existent, while the Workers (Communist) Party lives and grows stronger. A few days after our party had de- cided to enter the presidential elec- tion campaign under its own banner, the Cook county branch of the Illi- nois labor party held a conference. It registered the fact that LaFollette had announced his candidacy and that the national committee of the national farmer-labor party (organ- ized at St. Paul, Minn.) had with- drawn its candidates. Our party mem- bers, who came there as delegates, had finally come into their own. No longer were they compelled to pro- pose a farmerlabor party solution. They could now make a Communist criticism of the LaFollette movement and also propose a Communist solu- tion—the Communist candidates and the Communist program. An appeal for a farmer-labor party at this juncture would have been a dead slogan. It remained dead dur- ing the election campaign in spite of our efforts to revive it. Nothing has happened since which could revive it, except that our minority comrades are set upon it. To the working masses it is dead. “But,” say the mi. nority comrades, “the class struggle continues and will become ever more intense.”—Surely, and that is just one more reason why the Workers (Com- munist) Party should consciously strive to gain the leadership of the proletariat in these struggles, direct- ing them towards a real struggle for their class-interests. OPPORTUNISTIC CONCEPTION OF POLITICAL ACTION By JOHN WILLIAMSON. HERE are the minority members of the C, E, C. leading their followers with their confused the- ories? We find an illuminating ex- ample in the article of Comrade Karl Reeve, printed in the Dec. 4, issue of the DAILY WORKER. Let us quote a few of its gems: “The C. BE. ©. majority statement would lead us to believe that we must have faith in the Workers Party only on the industrial field.” And again: “For the C. B. C. majority thesis broaches no effort to win the leadership of these misguided work- ers and poor farmers thru the united front on the political field.” And in conclusion: “The majority emphasizes ‘the unit- ed front from below.’ We must have a united front to combat child labor exploitation, ‘the Dawes’ plan,’ for na- tionalization of mines, etc., we must have a special C, E. C. sub-committee to restate the old ways and to fer- ret out new ways of applying the unit- ed front. But we must desert the united front on the political field.” The most illuminating thing about Reeve’s article is his utter misconcep- tion of political action and what com- prises political demands. We find him stating that attempts at forming the united front on such issues as “child labor, the Dawes’ plan and the nationalization of mines” is limiting our united front tactics only to the industrial field. Anyone with the slightest conception of Marxism or the elementary concepts of Commun- ism knows that the greatest inter- national politi¢al issue facing the world proletariat today is the attempt of American capitalism to enslave the German working class thru the Dawes’ plan. Need we go further to show the ut- ter bankruptcy and misunderstanding of the minority thesis when such par- ticularly obvious political issues as those the C. HB. C. majority thesis puts forward as concrete issues upon which we ean form the united front, are termed “deserting the united front on the political field”? The C. BE. C. majority thesis states very definitely that our united front efforts must be from below and it does not behoove Comrade Reeve to sneer at this statement as this is the basis of the united front as expound- ed and understood by the Comintern. This is only another indication of the idea of the minority that the far- merlabor party slogan is the only form of the united front on the poli- tical fleld. This theory leads directly to a mere parliamentary conception of political action, a very opportun- istic and dangerous tendency, that wants to limit our conception of po- litical aetion to a farmer-labor party or such a slogan, UP WITH COMMUNISM! DOWN WITH FARMER-LABORISM! By J. B. WIRKKULA. EVER since I have been in the labor movement, which has since T was old enough to actively participate in it, have I been con- fronted with such a contrast as the present controversy in our party, or Communism vs. farmer-laborism. It is so ridiculous. I cannot fathom it in any other way than that in our party there exists a certain element which is utterly non-Communist. This is being demonstrated in the dis- cussion, Now, when we once have the Work: ers (Communist) Party, even to think of us advocating some liberal or any other party but our revolutionary party, 18 @ step aside from the cor- rect bd Hi park sed to actively par. there can exist only two kinds of gov- ernments and they are: a government based on proletarian dictatorship or a capitalist government based directly or indirectly on capitalist dictator- ship. Mid-way governments are out of date. “Big biz” is too strong for them. We can’t go back to '76, thus no midway government can serve the workers. Should we, therefore, kid ourselves and the working class with some other form of working class rule than the dictatorship of the proletariat? I say: No! We must build up the Workers (Communist) Party to a Communist mass party by carrying on pain front campaigns “from below,” {, @., to secure influence and members from among the actual wage workers and Door farmers und not maneuvers “from the top” by trying to capture Leino political party from the hands Facts For Communists The Foster-Lore Alliance and the Communist Intern Article ll. By JAY LOVESTONE. N our first article on the Foster- Lore alliance we tabulated the number of votes cast for and meas- ures proposed im behalf of Lore by the Foster-Cannon group. In this ar- ticle we tabulated the consistent voting of Lore for measures proposed in the central executive committee by the FosterCannon group and against proposals and policies of the Ruthenberg group. The Foster-Cannon group is now throwing about such epithets as “so- cialdemocrat” and “right wing oppor- tunists.". The Comintern has brand- ed Lore and his followers as a social- democrat group. It it interesting to note that Foster and Cannon are not galling social-democratic and oppor- tunists that group in the party which has been labeled as such by the Com- munist International. On the con- trary the voting records of the central executive committee show that those who are now so lavish in evading a discussion of the fundamental issues thru hiding behind a smoke screen of this sort, have been and still are. despite empty pre-convention talk, in an organic alliance with the social- democratic and opportunist section of our party. Il. Lore (Two-and-a-Half Interna- tional tendency) votes for measures proposed by Foster-Gannon group and against Ruthenberg-Pepper policies. Date. No. 1—January 3, Executive Committee. Motion. American delegation to Communist International. 1924. Central Vote. Lore votes for Foster slate. Date. No. 2—February 16, 1924, Executive Committee. Motion. Foster — Thesis regarding party farmer-labor party policy towards pro- posed May 30 convention refusing to pledge party to go ahead with this convention despite opposition of some “progressive” leaders frightened by LaFollette, Central Vote. Lore votes for Foster motion. Date. No, 3—February 16, 1924. Executive Committee. Motion. Pepper—Proposal to have Lore go to Communist International and de- fend his case. Vote. Lere votes with Foster group against this motion, Date. No, 4—February 16, 1924. Central Executive Committee. Motion. Election of new party chairman. Vote, Lore votes for Foster. Date. No. 5—February 16, 1924. Executive Committee, Motion. Central Central Election of acting executive secre- tary In absence of Ruthenberg. Vote. Lore votes for Bittelman and against Bedacht, Date. No. 6—February 16, 1924. Central Executive Committee. Motion. Cannon — Motion to make Dunne joint editor with Engdahl. Vote. Lore votes for Cannon motion. Date. No. 7-—February 16, 1924. Central Executive Committee, Motion. Bittelman—Motion to table Pepper motion expressing confidence in Git- low and continuing Freiheit as organ of central executive committees. Vote. Lore votes for Bittelman-Foster proposal. Date, No, &—February 16, 1924. Central Pepper—Pian for clympalgn. 4 Vote. Lore votes for Foster group propa- ganda proposal and votes with ma- jority to refer the whole question to political committee, Date. No. 9—March 18, Executive Committee, Motion, Pepper--Motion to make unemploy- ment a major party issue, Vote, Lore votes for Browder propaganda thesis. unemployment 1924. Central Date, No. 10—-March 18, 1924, Centra! little, if any, results from them, Our party’s past experiences should prove this even to those who have so far been unable to think beyond farmer. laborism, Up with Communism by building ational Executive Committee. Motion. Cannon—Motion to have London (“Loreite”) be sent as delegate to | Berlin conference. Vote. Lore votes for Cannon motion. Date, j No, 11--March 18, | Executive Committee, Motion. | Pepper—Motion to refer this quee- |tion back to proper department for | further consideration, Vote. Lore votes with majority to defeat motion. 1924, Gentral Date. No. 12—Mareh 18, 1924. Executive Committee. Motlon. Pepper—Motion to disapprove Can- non’s conduct at Jewish convention, Vote. Lore votes with Foster majority to defeat this motion. Date. No, 13-—-March 18, Executive Committee, Motion. Foster—Motion to have Johnstene be acting secretary of Trade Union Educational League. Amendment by Pepper to have Gitlow. Vote. Lore votes for Foster motion. ~ Date. No. 14—March 18, 1924. Executive Committee. Motion. Pepper—Motion to add Engdahi to political committee. Vote. Lore votes with Foster to defeat this motion. Central 1924, Central Central Date, No. 15—March 18, 1924. Gentra! Executive Committee. Motion, Pepper-—-Motion to add Lovestone to organization committee. Vote. Lore votes with Foster to defeat this motion. Date. No. 16—March Executive Committee. Motion. Cannon—Motion to make Bittelman editor of magazine section of DAILY WORKER. (Up to this time Love- stone had been editor.) Vote. Lore votes for Cannon motion, No. 17--March Executive Committee, Motion. Foster—Substitute for Ruthenberg motion to change name of party to Communist Party. Foster proposes to seek advice of Communist Inter national. Vote, Lore votes for Foster motion. Date. No; 18—May 2, 1924. Central Ex exuctive Committee, Motion. Bittelman—Series of motions as against Ruthenberg proposals regard- ing national and state labor party policies, Vote. Lore votes for Bittelman. Date, No, 19—-May 2, 1924. Central Bx exuctive Committee, Motion. Cannon—Motion to have subcom- mittee examine Brom documents, Lovestone — Amendment— To com sider case closed In view of no new evidence warranting reopening. Vote. Lore votes for Cannon. Date. No. 20—May 2, 1924. Central Sm exuctive Committee. Motion, Ruthenberg — Motion to publish statement of District 3 regarding cen tral ive committee declaration on factionalism. Vote. Lore votes with Foster « “majority to defeat Ruthenberg motion, Date. No, 21-—-May 3, 1924 Central Ex exuctive Committee, Motion. Election of DAILY WORKER man- agement committee. defeat Dngdahl, Date, No, 22—-May 3, 1924, Central Ex exuctive Committe, Motion. Ruthenberg—Motion to have tem porary Red Ald section for ganda purposes. Lore votes no vith Foster rom Date. No, 28—May 3, 1924. Central Ex exuctive Committee, Motion. Bittelman—Motion to defer on Philippine program Lovestone by referring same to cal committee. Vote. Lore votes for Bittelannn Date.