The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 19, 1924, Page 4

Page Four Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks COMRADE BEDACHT CALLS FOR ‘ACTION’ By EARL Ri BROWDER. ITH their usual judgment, the minority picked ‘out: Comrade Bedacht to throw the “bomb” whitch was to annihilate the majority—‘“Pro- grams for Action—Words for Deeds,” which “exposes” the majority of the central executive committee as a bunch of phrasemongers while the mi- nority of Lovestone, Bedacht, Eng- dahl, Ruthenberg and Gitlow, valiant- ly try to pull the party aléng with them in action—real action. Unfor- tunately for Comrade Bedacht, and -his Political advisers, the party happens to know something of the»gomrades on both sides of the controversy. Ard when the party hears, from Bedacht, that Foster is no good because he is a man of paper resolutions without any action, a great big horse laugh will go up in honor of Comrade Bedacht’s good German joke. There is no question \that_Comfade Bedacht is burning for action. He wants action on anything at any price. Just so it is action. But doesn’t action usually have a purpose? And-mustn’t action be specific? Just action, for action’s sake, is hardly a Communist slogan. What kind of action is Com: rade Bedacht complaining he hasn’t been given? So far as can be gath- ered from his article, the specific lack of “action” on the part of the majority consists of the following: 1, The unions are not amalgamat- ed. He wants “action.” 2. The Pan-American program was presented by the majority only a few days before the congress was to open. He wanted “quicker action.” 3. There is unemployment in Amer- ica, to fight against which the C. E. C. adopted’a comprehensive program with instructions to all party units to put it into effect as fast as conditions permit. Comrade Bedacht wants “more action.” Now, let’s examine these points. No. 1 is surely a sore point for us. The unions are not amalgamated, that’s true, and we're all angry as the devil about it. We're going to have to fig- ure out some new ways to fight for this neeessary measure of solidarity. But—has the minority or any member of it, done anything or even suggested anything to bring this. about? Not one! | The only one of the minority group on the C. E. C.. who ever takes any kind of part in solving industrial questions is Comrade Gitlow, and since he lost the editorship of the Freiheit he has been sulking in his tent, refusing“ to give us~the “benefit of his wisdom. So if we want action on amalgamation (as, of course, we do) I’m afraid we'll have to go some where else beside the minority to get it. No. 2, the Pan-American question. It is true, as Comrade Bedacht says, that much preliminary work is. requir- ed for such a problem, and the pro- gram should have been worked out long in advance. We knew that, and so we had sent our “imperialism ex- pert,” Comrade. Lovestone, on. a long, long trip to Mexico, at a cost of good party money, to lay the necessary preliminary lines and bring back re- commendations. Comrade Lovestone had a nice trip, no doubt of that. HE BROUGHT BACK NOT ONE SINGLE ITEM OF INFORMATION; HE RENDERED NOT ONE LINE OF WRITTEN REPORT; HE MADE NOT ONE SINGLE RECOMMENDATION, for the work in hand. So finally, at the last moment, our poor “syndical- ist” majority had to use their rough proletarian common sense and rule- ofthumb methods ‘in hammering out @ program and a bunch of manifes- tos. They may have been a bit late, and perhaps, Comrade Lovestone could have made them much more “intellectual.” .The facts are that he didn’t, nor did any of the.minority, and what was done was solely the /work of the majority the. C,--Be. C, And—really—it wasn’t so ‘bad, ‘was it? No. 3. Unemployment: Suddenly, at the last convention, when the mi- nority first became self-conscious as a minority, they also discovered that their special charge was to look out for the interests of the’ unerhployed: ‘That is a laudible ambition, for surely a Communist Party must do every- thing in its power to organize the un- employed, and to make unemployment a burning political issue. But how to do it, that is-the question. Unluckily forthe minority, their record as the.discoverers of the un- employment prdblem'is not clear; their claims to a copyright are voided by the documents of record. It was a member of the present majority (then minority) who drew up the first document of our party last year point- ing out the approaching unemploy- ment and warning of the necessity for action. Comrade Bedacht should know this, for he was consulted about the document before its adoption, and made no amendments of suggestion. And a year before this, the samé ¢om- rade of the present majofity had drawn up a program of methods to combat unemployment. So we knew about the problem-—and knew it be- fore the present minority—and drew up documents to deal with it which they did not propose to amend. Documents! exclaimed Comrade Be- dacht in disgust. What about action? Well, both minority and majority proposed resolutions. Both were docu- ments, And action comes from the party—not from the :¢.,E. C.—even Comrade Bedacht himself, noted cham- pion of action, has but rarely. been seen upon the barricades. He is much more at home with a,,comfortable volume of Greek mythology.or mem- irs of the French revolution. (not hat I hold this against Comrade, Be- lacht; I only envy him his. ability to enjoy his studies so well when there is so much work to be done). But what was in the documents? The _Lovestone-Bedacht . combina- tion of actionists said: Throw. aside all other work upon the industrial field, including the slogan--of; amal- gamation which. is obsolete. and ‘pro- ceed at once to,make. the)!immediate organization of unemployed councils the central point of the entire party life. The C. E. C. majority said: Gently, comrades, gently pray! Don’t be in such a hurry to scrap our whole pro- gram, tireséme as it may be to you. We will proceed to tackle the unem- ployment problem in a rational” man- ner and without unnecessary hyster- ics. We willstudy all the facts of un- employment, propagandize about it in the press, lay out the slogans upon which a campaign must be organized, and CALL UPON THE ENTIRE PARTY ‘TO"BEGIN ORGANIZATION WORK AS QUICKLY ‘AS CONDI TIONS PROMISE ANY RESULTS. That was almost a year ago. In the meantime, we have educated our party to.an appreciation of the-unem- ployment problem, have circulated 20,000 pamphlets on unemployment (in which Comrade. Ruthenberg “him- self could. find--only~“two incidental errors” which.turned out'to bé, after all, not errors), and finally, ONE YEAR AFTER. the-minority demanded unconditional abandonmeftt 6f" éVery- thing else for “action” ii organizing unemployed councils, we are at last approaching; -still-rather siowly, the period: when -organization of ‘the un- employed may really begin to be a practical immediate problem. And as this action develops we feel assur- ed that, because of our careful prepar- ation and education of the party, such action will not be the sterile futility which the famous unemployment movement.was that Comrade Amter led in 1921. Actions, not words, says,.Comrade Bedacht on behalf of the minority, We agree, Comrade Bedacht, and we ask you and your associates to come down from your rosy clouds of fantasy, wherein you are dreaming about mani- pulating the millions of the American masses with dignified waves of your collective hands, and begin to take a constructive part in the American class struggle. It is not so easy as making opposition motions. in the C. B. C., which is the sum total of your “actions” for the past year, but it will bring us a few steps nearer to our goal of the proletarian revolution. Which is more than your farmer-la- bor dreams will do. THE C. E. C. MAJORITY POLICY— A COMMUNIST POLICY By C. KOTEFF, HENEVER the apologists of’ a certain party policy become hys- terical in their, discussions, we can state with certainty that the hysteria ig the result of lack of facts to cor- roborate their policy and consequent- ly that policy is a hopeless one. That precisely is the characteristic trait of the minority of our party and es- pecially of Comrades Bedacht, Love- stone and Amter in the present dts- cussions. Now'fét’s not give vent to hysteria; let's’“not~ shift’ the” center of gravity of the discussions from a common sense Communist discussion to a rather senseless emotional and malignant wrangling. Discussion of our Party’s Immediate Tasks, First of all, let’s not forget that this is a discussion of our party's .imme- diate tasks and not of oui#-Bnalaims, We have before us a concfete, ‘a spe- cifie problem, i. e.: the farmer-labor party problem which must be sdived upon the basis of existing economic | and political conditions. We must solve that problem in the immediate future for the next year or so and not for the next 15 or 20 years. That is to say, we prepare ourselves and meet the situation as it develops, in a Leninist way and not in a scholasti- cal and metaphysical way. The €. B. C. majority of our party, the Workers (Communist) Party, have placed the question of the farmer- labor party policy squarely before us and in an unequivocal manner, They say: We are not opposed to the farm- er-labor party on principle. However, judging from objective conditions, as Marxists and Leninists do, we find that today the great majority of the working class masses that were half- way willing to support a farmer-labor party have simply aligned themselves with the LaFollette movement. Ideo- logically, the farmer-labor movement of 1922-28 was a LaFollette move- ment. Those masses that showed a sentiment for a farmerlabor party in reality couldn't differentiate between W THE DAILY WORKER . real farmer-labor party and the La- Follette movement and as a result, ac- cepted the LaFollette movement as the farmerlabor party. Consequent- ly it would simply be an impossibility for us to even attract the attention of any significant group of those masses with a slogan “For a farmer- labor party,” let alone to set them in motion for one. Therefore, our im- mediate task in that field should be to expose the LaFollette movement and disillusion the working class masses therein thru the most effec- tive means now available—thru par- ticipation of the Workers (Commun- ist) Party in the everyday struggles of the workers, thru united fronts on the numerous burning issues of the class struggle and in such a way we will most advantageously build a mass Communist Party. General Abstractions For Facts. Against this unrefutable Communist analysis of the situation by the C. EB. C. majority the comrades of the mi- nority cannot put up.a single valid argument, They have as yet to prove that the working class masses who dis- played ‘a sentiment for a farmer-la- bor party were not absorbed in the LaFollette movement. In fact, the minority have practically admitted the contention of the C. E. C. on this point. Nevertheless they are trying to evade this cardinal question by shifting the center of gravity of the discussion and insisting that “the de- velopment of capitalism brings about the intensification of the class strug- gle, that this intensified struggle in- volves the open use of the state pow- er against the workers and forces the workers into the political struggle” and therefore, we have the basis “For a class farmer-labor party,” thus supplying general formulae and ab- stractions instead of facts that the is- sue demands. Comrade Ruthenberg asks again his famous question which he corrected somewhat: “Is the mass movement toward class political action, which has developed in the United States thru the intensification of the class struggle since the end of the war, dead?” Constantly bearing in mind that the Workers (Communist) Party represents a definite movement for a class political action, altho not as yet a mass movement, I will say to the minority, on this question that the mass movement toward class poli- | tical action in the sense of a “Class farmer-labor, party”. is’ not dead for the simple reason that it never was born; for what we termed a mass sen- timent for independent political action existed and still exists in a rudimen- tary format tn-rewttty wits dominant- ly permeated with a LaFollette ideo- logy. In.other words, when LaFol- lette came out as an independent presidential candidate he simply took what was his own. The working class masses couldn't see clearly the neces- sity for a “Class farmer-labor party” and since LaFollette was a much sreater political. factor in their eyes, hey were fully satisfied that the La- Follette movement is the movement they wanted. They were, are still to- day and will be for some time to come, obsessed with the LaFollette illusion. So it will be nothing short of a folly on our part to try now or in the immediate future to maneuver those masses with a slogan “For a farmer-labor party.” But Comrade Ruthenberg says: “The C. P. P. A., the LaFollette move- ment is offering an organizational crystallization to workers’ and farm- ers’ organizations in the folds of the petty bourgeois third party. Shall we abandon the field and permit this crystallization to take place?” No, we shall not abandon that field, we will fight the LaFollette movement from below on burning issues of the every- day class struggle, but let’s not en- tertain such inconsistent illusions that we can prevent the organization of a movement if the economic political and social basis for it exists. I think this extraordinary tendency toward constant political maneuvering, re- gardless of objective conditions and revolutionary practice, is a.danger- ous one and should be stopped. An Army That Understands How to Fight. Recently a comrade of the minority stated that we should make the Work- ers (Communist) Party a mass Com munist Party-and that the mémber- ship of the party should be an “army that understands how to fight.” Pre- cisely so, That’s another reason why we should adopt the policy of the C. BE. C. majority, A mass Communist Party in name only with an army that does not know how to fight is not worth having. The present party dis- cussion proves that we already have an army, which does not know yet how to fight. Hence the great im- portance of the slogan, “Bolshevize the party.” Even if the contention of the minority in regard to the exist- ence of sentiment “for a class farmer- labor party” is correct, which it is not, even then after the intense poli- tical campaigns that we have just gone thru we should halt for a mo- ment, take an inventory of our past activities, Bolshevize our membership, organize the thousands of sympathiz- ers that we have won thru our cam- paigns and then proceed again with our maneuvers on the political and economic fields. ‘The Communist International Will En- dorse the Policy of the C, E. C. Of all the comrades that recently were in Russia, and there are quite a few, only Comrade Amter, as far as I SRA ORME ee”) LL oe Tenens FIGHT OFF THIS PARALYSIS! By J. LOUIS ENGDAHL. HERE is a disease gripping our party. Comrade Max Bedacht rightly analyzes it, in his indictment of the majority position, as follows: “Programs” for Action; Words for Deeds. That is a fatal disease for any Communist Party. It is a disease that must be eradicated’ from our party if we are to develop as a fight- ing, forward-moving section of the Communist International. It is a dis- ease that the majority of our central executive committee carefully fosters, not only thru its thesis and thru its part of the present discussion, but thru its day-to-day handling of party affairs. It is a disease that the pres- ent minority of the central executive committee strenuously opposes; that it proposes to eradicate thru the pro- gram laid down for the party mem- bership to adopt thru our party's na- tional convention. so 8 We Must Keep Initiative. “Programs” instead of action leaves the initiative to some other agency. In the case of the Communist strug- gle for power, where we surrender the initiative, it is taken up by the enemy class. The majority upholds its negative position, that there is no farmer-labor sentiment in the United States, on the two suppositions that: (1) LaFol- lette has swallowed the farmer-labor movement; and that (2) the so-called “progressive” movement will organize the third party, which will be a farm- er-labor party. In fact, we are told that the LaFollette movement is the farmer-labor movement; that all ex- ploited workers and poor farmers without the confines of our party have all gone irretrievably bourgeois. So why bother about them? ‘ee © How easy! How self-satisfying! With a single forensic gesture, it is declared that this disturbing sector of our united front is engulfed. The majority tells us it has disappeared. We are urged by the majority not only to quit fighting for independent political action, in. the revolutionary struggle to win the workers and poor farmers for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but we are supposed to hypnotize ourselves into believing that LaFollette has lifted this burden: of our struggle off our shoulders by monopolizing the field. Comrade Fostersis himself guilty of this most mechanical and most un- real gesture, in the whole history of our young American Communist move- ment, when he proclaims in the De- cember issue of the ‘Workers’ Monthly” that: “When the LaFollette movement swallowed up the farmer-labor party movement in the months preceding the election, it left us with two dead things on our hands. One of these was a dead organization, the national farmer-labor party, and the other was a dead slogan, ‘For a mass farmer- labor party’.” ih Je No Easy Road to Power. It is easy for Comrade Foster to act the role of undertaker and cre- mator of our united front farmer-labor action, thru magazine articles, speech- es, manifestoes and contributions to this discussion. But just because it is so easy, so mechanical in execu- tion, that does not mean that it is the solution of a difficult party prob- lem. Quite the contrary. It is here that a paragraph from “The Infantile Sickness,” Lenin’s re- vealing pamphlet, rings clear as a bell when it says: “ ‘Our theory is not a dogma, but a manual of action,’ said Marx and Engels, and the greatest mistake, the greatest crime of patented Marxists . . . is that they have not understood this, that they were unable to apply it. . . ‘Political activity Is not the thorofare of the Nevsky Prospekt’ (a clean, wide, level, straight main street of Lenin. grad).” se @ Words for Deeds, But Comrade Foster’s group claims to have discovered the straight, wide, level highway. There is plenty of comfortable going upon it. There is no crowding. The workers and poor farmers may join us if they wish. But we'll not wander off this com- fortable road in the hunt for them. LaFollette has taken our whole farm- er-labor united front sector, says the majority. The war is declared at an end. The masses of the workers and poor farmers have surrendered to the enemy. Let the enemy class have them, says Foster, If they break their own prison bars and come back to us, some day, well and good. But we aE i tides male know, disagrees with the policy of the Cc. E. ©. And what is most striking in his article of Dee. 15, in the DAILY WORKER is his hysterical attitude against everything that the ©. B. ©. has done and is raising an unfounded alarm with “charges.” There is noth- ing wrong with Comrade Amter ex- cept that he either didn’t understand the leaders of the Comintern, or else he is too hasty in his criticism of the C. B. C, and has not had a fair chance to study the conditions over here, The policy of the C. E. C, majority 's a Communist policy and the Com- munist International most certainly will endorse it, ser) will not help them break with the petit bourgeois influences that lured chem away from us, We'll fight for them no longer, says Foster. We'll just go ahead mimeographing and publishing programs instead of car- rying out actions; we'll confound the enemy with our words, instead of con- quering and annihilating the enemy thru Communist deeds. be ane LaFollette Movement Disintegrates. Even a political novice should be able to see the weaknesses and disin- tegrating influences within the so- called LaFollette “progressive” move- ment, that Comrade Foster endows with such heroic qualities that it is able to feed on whole strata of our working class population. The LaFollette movement, that won the temporary support of four millions of voters on last Nov. 4, began a process of disintegration even before the elections took place, and this has been rapidly proceeding ever since. It has now developed the qualities of the proverbial rope of sand. It is rather unfortunate that the dwindling LaFollette cohorts, now re- duced to a few socialist political or- phans and the homeless petit bour- geois of the “Committee of 48” have decided to put their promised national gathering off until Feb. 21, next year. Otherwise we would have a living de- monstration, even before our own na- tional convention, of the fallacy of Comrade Foster's claims for the La- Follette “progressive” movement. ee No LaFollette Third Party. LaFollette will not organize a third party, no matter how much the “so- cialists” and the forty-eighters desire he should do so; no matter how much our own majority may insist that he will. Even if LaFollette had plans to organize a third party, as Comrade Foster believes, we should fight all the harder, thru the farmer-labor unit- ed front, and by every other means at our disposal, thru our industrial and political work. But the certain break- up of the LaFollette movement makes our task easier. *es 8 The Contents of the Mulligan. What was the organized LaFollette Movement? At bottom it had the per- sonality of the Wisconsin senator. He was the dominant political power in his own state. The railroad brother- hoods, with their rich treasuries, pre- ferred McAdoo on the democratic ticket, but he was rejected by the Madison Square Garden convention. So they turned to LaFollette. Al Smith, governor of New York, the idol of Tammany Hall, also of the Gom- pers’ regime in the American Fed- eration of Labor, suffered rejection at the same time. The result was that the executive council of the A. F. of Ul. by a bare majority vote, endors- ed LaFollette, which was also a sum mons to the Gompers’ henchmen in all the land to back up the Wisconsin senator. Thus he won the support of the Tammany Hall laborites in New York city and state. The agrarian unrest helped gain support for La- Follette. The stone-faced reaction of both the old parties, in refusing to lend an ear to even the palest pro- gressive ideas also drove some of the shocked bourgeoisie into the LaFol- lette camp. sf @ The Break-up Begins. It is interesting to analyze what has happened to these discordant ele- ments. The first break came in the week before election day, when the Gompers’ machine, in New York city and state, over the protests of the LaFolletteites and the “socialists” broke away and threw their support to Davis, the democrat. This incident clearly foretold what would happen at the El Paso conven- tion of the A, F. of L., where any sem- blance of a third party mask was thrown aside, and the old non-partisan political policy endorsed. LaFollette was not invited to the A. F. of L. con- vention. Instead the special guest of the gathering was James A. Drain, head of the American (Fascist) Le- gion. Gompers’ ghost, in the form of some other “labor lieutenant” of capi- talism, will knock at the doors of the Wall Street old party convention in 1928. Gompers did not organize the “labor party,” as Comrade Foster had prophesied, nor will those who come after him; neither will LaFollette, as Comrade Foster now foretells, ** The Backbone Drops Out. The latest staggering blow to the LaFollette movement has just been dealt by the railroad brotherhoods at the meeting of the national commit- tee of the conference for progressive political action, just held in Washing- ton. Thru their hired man, the form- er democratic congressman, Ed Keat- ing, editor of “Labor,” their official organ, they urged the indefinite post- Ponement of the national gathering planned for January. oe clear that all pretense to cessfully terminated. CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, WORKERS PARTY, WEP 9; Praten campaign manager, Representative John M. Nelson, nor Senators Ladd, Frazier and Brookhart, supposed to have been disciplined by the Coolidge machine in the republican party. They show no signs of revolt from Wall Street’s pet party. se The Decrepit Remains. There remain only the “socialists,” who are at the end of their fake “la- bor party” campaign started at. their Detroit convention, in 1921, and the petit bourgeois camp followers who snuggle about Oswald Garrison Vil- lard’s “Nation,” organ of a*second- hand brand of “democratic-pacifism.” These little offshoots will be interred with what is left of the corpse of the LaFollette movement at the proper time. ee) Fight to Win Betrayed Masses. But the Communist struggle for a farmer-labor united front does not go into the grave with the LaFollette “progressive” movement, as Comrade Foster would have us believe. In spite of Comrade Foster, the farmer- labor united front and the farmer- labor slogan, refuse to die. It is recognized by all, at the pres- ent time, that it was foolish for the Communist movement to boycott the elections in 1920. In that year Debs, while in prison for violating the war’s espionage ‘act, received nearly a mil- lion votes. Parley Christianson, as the farmer-labor presidential candi- date, received over a quarter million more. Debs has turned his back on those who believed in him. The whole of the farmer-labor officialdom during the last five years, from Fitzpatrick to Mahoney, have been exposed as the enemies of independent political ac- tion. The question now is, as some comrades put it, are we, too, going to desert the farmer-labor united front and make it unanimous? The minority believes that it is a criminal policy for our Workers (Com- munist) Party to surrender the lead- ership, that we can win over these betrayed and resentful masses: thru an aggressive Communist struggle, to the next charlatan that seeks to raise his traitor standards in their midst, be it a LaFollette, a Johnston or a Hill- quit. It is the worst form of inertia for the present majority to dismiss the whole problem with a listless wave of the hand, and an equally listless ques- tion challenging the minority with— “Where is your farmer-labor senti- ment?” ese 8 The Position of the “C, 1.” ADDITION TO RULES FOR THE DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS. N conformity with a decision made at the last full meeting of the alae Executive Committee, to the effect that the FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS at all membership meetings shall be to INSURE THE DAILY WORKER FOR 1925, it is hereby announced that the first half hour at each of the ten district mass membership meetings decided upon shall be devoted to this important campaign of the party. The district organizers will be notified who the DAILY WORKER speakers will be and together with the DAILY WORKER agents are to organize the meeting so that this first order of business may be suc- Fridays December 19, 1924 Chairman Executive Secretary of the central executive committee of our party, issued after consultation with the executive committee of the Communist International in the spring of the year, where it says: “The first task of the Workers Party is to become a mass Commun- ist Party of workers. It can fulfill this task only by most actively par- ticipating in the establishment of a labor party which will embrace all elements of the working class will- ing to conduct a policy independent of the capitalist class and by estab- lishing a bond with the farmers who are at present in a state of strong fermentation. These two indepen- dent tasks—the task of building around the Communist Party of a broad class party and of establish- ing a bond between the labor party and the poorest elements of the farmers—have developed in the United States, thanks to the peculi- arities of historical evolution, as one problem, namely, the building of a common party of workers and exploited farmers.” The above paragraph has been quoted before in this discussion. I repeat it, and hope others will do the same. Comrade Foster says he wrote it, in Moscow, while in consultation with the executive of the Communist International. So much the worse for him in the present discussion. The Communist International approved of that position. It was unanimously en: dorsed by the central executive com- mittee of our American party. oe Stand by the Minority. The minority of the C. E. C. re- mains loyal to this position. The ma- jority has deserted it; seeking to blind the membership now with extravagant declarations to the effect that “the LaFollette movement has swallowed up the former-labor party movement”; that this united front issue is dead; that the slogan is dead, and similar nonsense. The party membership must stand by the present minority of the Central Executive Committee, in upholding the declarations of our last national party convention, and of the Ex ecutive Committee of the Communist International, and eradicating from our party this insidious disease so sedulously fostered by the present majority, leading to sterility and isola- tion. Fight off this paralysis! Let us quote the answer to the ma- oe. jority from the unanimous declaration A STRANGE SILENCE— == WHERE IS COMRADE LORE? By BERT MILLER. ‘HRUOUT all the discussion of the party policy, it seems very strange that we hear not one word from Lore. Here is a comrade who claims to un- derstand most clearly the develop- ments in the American labor move- ment, who claims to be an authority on current events, who claims to have been the only one with the correct attitude on LaFollette (which the ©. I. emphatically denies), and who is at the same time a member of the cen- tral executive committee. This same comrade, who very readily attacks the Communist International and up- holds Levi and Trotsky, seems to be very slow about making up his ahd about a major matter of American party policy. Lore has neither signed one of the theses presented, nor has he proposed one of his own. Shall we hold up the course of the revolution in this country until the comrade makes up his mind? Or has Lore again lost the courage to oppose the F. L. policy as he stated at a Ne York membership meeting? Or d he desire to avoid staining the pure white wings of the majority? / Perhaps an itional réason for Comrade Lore’s not presenting a thesis of his own is today, as last May he fears f, the Com- “munist International, \ No Meeting or Other Affair Complete Unless- ‘© meeting of the Workers Party, business or propaganda, no dance, social, study class, bazaar or forum is complete unless POLICIES find a place in the program of the evening, All committees of the party arranging affairs for the party must _| remember this, and party members attending party affairs must see to it that INSURANCE POLICIES take a front seat at all of them. Only by constantly insisting upon POLICY SALES will we seoure the $50,000 with which to INSURE THE DAILY WORKER FOR 1926, t.