The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 20, 1924, Page 8

REALISTIC By MIKE ROSS. TRIPPED of all hair splitting tech- nicalities, misinterpretations and irrelevant matter the discussion’ with- in our party simmers down to the fol- lowing main difference. 1. The majority of the C. BE. C. wants to throw the whole farmer-labor party policy overboard because it is a dead issue for the present and near future as it was swallowed by the La- Follette movement, but specify that if it should get into life again our policy will be changed accordingly. 2.. The minority claims that since the majority admit that it was a live issue formerly, the setback given it by the LaFollette movement can only be of a temporary nature and the pol- icy is now as important as ever. Most of the leaders on both sides will admit that a united political front does not only consist in a farmer-labor party, both sides did admit that if a mass movement for a class farmer- labor party does exist, that it would be our duty to fight with it on a united political front. They also know that it is not abso- lutely necessary for our country to go thru a labor party period. It would therefore, be folly for us to organize it. We would only be kidding our- selves. It is only when it assumes the proportions of a mass movement that we can enter it in order to win the masses for Communism. The difference therefore is not on a real principle, but rather on the advis- ability of the application of that prin- ciple at the present time. To answer this would require a study of the thoughts, opinions and psychology of the masses within the unions. Unfortunately we have no real data to answer this. The only way we could arrive at reliable results is by getting the opinions of all comrades that are active in the trade unions. If this were done, I feel sure that the overwhelming majority would an swer that there is no mass movement for a class farmer-labor party. That part of it which does exist was creat ed and is largely controlled by our comrades and could be induced to sup- port the Workers Party. That a very big percentage of what we understood to be a mass sentiment for a class farmer-labor party was simply a move- ment for LaFollette and the percent- age that does stand for a class farmer- labor party and is beyond our control is so small that it is ridiculous to make an issue out of it. It is argued that since the majority admit.in their thesis that a mass movement for a class farmer-labor party did exist, how is it.that it sud- denly disappeared? History shows that mass movements based on eco- nomic class interests do not vanish as if by magic neither could they be swallowed by LaFollette. If such-a thing does happen it could only be of short duration. If this-really was the case, then it must be admitted that the minority of the C. BE. C. has the best of the argument and are - correct in their views.. The ‘fact is that there never was a@ mass movement for a class farmer labor party as distinct from a LaFol- lette party. The figures and facts brought to light during the discussion definitely prove this, and if this isn’t sufficient, surely the results of this mass movement ought to convince anybody. This fictitous “class” movement be- came fully developed in the mind of our once great therotician John Pep- per. It assumed gigantic proportions. Every little incident was magnified and exaggerated until it became indis- putable. This false or mistaken in- formation was spread among the mem- bership. The party finally accepted the. farm- er-labor policy and when this move- ment went into the place where it be- longed, namely in the LaFollette move- ment, it was only natural for our lead- ers to take the next step and advocate entering into the third party move- ment in order to win the masses away from LaFollette. Luckily the Com- munist International put an end to this opportunism. It is peculiar that both factions of the present C. E. C. agreed to the above tactics and their difference now is that the minority still sticks to these illusions while the majority is beginning to walk on solid ground. The majority, however, is hamper- ed because it still clings to its former illusions thru apologies of former ac- tions and by doing so they are work- ing directly into the hands of Ruth- enberg and Lovestone. It will be asked why does not the majority admit that it was a mistake from the very beginning? — Well, not everybody could be a Lenin and admit before the whole world their mistakes. Despite these short comings it is the duty of every Communist to get down to reality and support the ma- jority of the C. E. C. THE MINORITY THESIS LEADS TO OPPORTUNISM By HANS JOHNSON. ‘HE minority in their thesis and in all the articles supporting the minority thesis have exposed them- selves as the real right wing of our party. Not only as.a slight deviation to the right, but real right wing op- portunism. In priticiple they are more the real farmer-laborites, farmer-la- bor parliamentarians, than Commun- ists. They maintain that the majority of the central executive committee have discared the united front on the political field. by ditching the slogan, “For a Farmer-Labor Party,” under the present condition By this they only prove that they do not under- stand the fundamental principles of the ‘united front, and less do they un: dérstand the ‘efféctive application of ‘our united front ‘slogans in ‘their va-' To the minority—so it’ seenisthe united front politically: ‘ rious forms.’ cannot be carried’ on unless we use othe »slogan, “Fora ‘Class’ Farmer: » Labor Party.” that slogan is less effectivg to bring about the political consciousness of the MASSES than any of our other slogans that can be based on the im- mediate needs of the workers in their «They do not take into. {| eonsidefation, thatatithe present time everyday struggles against the capi- talist class. To the minority the creation of a farmer-labor party, a “class mass” farmer-labor party, or what The Discussion on Party Tasks THE WORKERS PARTY IS BECOMING for propaganda purposes, and only where there is a wide move towards such a party on the part of the MASSES, ete.—the industrial workers and poor farmers—and not where only a few so-called labor leaders are erying for it. If there were a wide movement in existence towards a farmer-labor party on the part of.the masses of industrial workers and poor farmers, then it would be the duty of the. Communists to assist in driving that movement to the left, before and after it crystallizes itself into an or-, ganizational. form. But, when there is no movement on the part of -the’ masses towards such a party, distinct from the LaFollette movement on.the: one hand .and-.the Workers. (Com: munist) Party, on the other, then, in- ‘deed, it is time to discard: that stale slogan, for a>“Farmer-Labor. Party,” and come to realities. To push that slogan at the present time in an at- temp mechanically to create another party outside of the Workers Party is pure nonsense. To quote Comrade Dunne, the attempt “is the inevitable outcome of an opportunist policy springing from a wrong tendency in the united front tactic.” How true this is, cannot be overemphasized. What’s the matter with you, minor- ity comrades? Have you lost faitn in the Workers (Communist) Party? You maintain that by using the slogan. For a Farmer-Labor Party,” it will be possible for the Workers Party to drive a wedge into the LaFollette third party. movement, and break away from it the most militant and leftist. industrial workers and poor farmers. If that is possible under the slogan. “For a Farmer-Labor: Party,” then what prevents. it under the slogan, “The Workers (Communist) Party vs. the LaFollette Third (Bour- geois) Party”? Why give the farmer- labor sugar coating to those: militant leftist industrial workers and poor farmers you speak about; if:you have not entirely lost faith in the ability of ‘the Workers (Communist). Party to take the direct lead of such left workers and poor farmers by bringing them directly into the Workers Party instead of some half-way party with a.reformist program at its best? The movement towards a farmer- labor party distinct from the LaFol- lette third party movement which. the minority comrades maintain is still here, exists only in the metaphysical minds of Comrades Lovestone and Ruthenberg. Their innermost desire to create a “mass farmer-labor party” is directly responsible for their erro- neous policy, which tends to lead our party into channels of opportunism. The movement they speak of is dead and every wideawake rank and filer is aware of that fact. The rank and file of our party will accept the policy of the central execu- ‘ive committee as outlined in the majority thesis. A SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC AFFAIR By MAX BEDACHT. deep mystery was solved for me the other day. For a long time I was wondering why the central ex ecutive committee majority insisted on combatting not what the minority says or does, but what the majority would like them to say or do. But now I know. Comrade Bittelman enlight- ened me. And I thank him for it. In his recent article Comrade Bittelman said that the minority (altho lacking in Communist principles and under- standing) do not lack in ability to hide their shortcomings. Altho, sc Bittelman says, the minority are op- portunists, yet they are careful and successful in hiding that fact when they write or speak. I have a vision. I see before me the capitalist prosecutor of Karl Lieb- knecht in the German supreme court at Leipzig. He has before the court as evidence a book written by Karl. The prosecutor reads from this book: “The period of army mobilization is the least opportune time for a prole- tarian rebellion.” He asks Leib- knecht: “Is it not a fact that you wanted to write the most opportune time?” Leibknecht answers in the negative. But the prosecutor insists that this is a typographical error and maintains that Leibknecht must be sent to the penitentiary. Since he was a capitalist prosecutor and pleaded before a capitalist court he got his way. Leibknecht was sent to the penitentiary for eighteen months not for what he wrote, but for what the prosecutor wanted him to have writ- they choose to call it, has become an |ten. end in itself, A party based on par- liamentarist reformism. ‘They go on to say that, if there is no such a party it is the duty of the Communists to help in bringing about the ‘birth of such a party, and Comrade Ruthen- ‘bég in several of his articles has the nerte to state that such a party will fight the CLASS STRUGGLE of thé workers and poor farmers of this country. Who ever heard of such nonsense, from a Communist, an ex- ‘ecutive secretary of a section of the Communist International? What role is: the Workers (Communist) Party ‘to play,.if a farmer-labor party is ‘going to fight the class struggle of the workers and poor farmers of this. country? There can be no. other CLASS PARTY in America outside of the Workers (Communist) Party. That, ought to be clear to every Com- munist. ; And it is not the duty of the Communists to. create such parties where none exist. The slogan for a farmer-labor party can only be used 4 ——$—<—$——$—$< I would advise Bittelman to apply for a job as prosecutor. He shows =e ppl qualities for such a posi- ‘We, the fiit#ority of the C. E: ©, ‘are in a more fortunate position than the majority. Our criticism can be’ based on facts. When we charge the Cc. E. C. majority with opportunism we can accompany the accusation with conclusive proof. The Communist International has instructed the C. B. C. of our party to carry.on an ideological struggle. against the tendencies expressed and led by Lore. How has the ©. BR. G, of our party carried out this instrue- tion? In later articles I will have to: say more about this. Today I will merely give a little incident to show: the nature of the ideological campaign carried on by the C, EB. C. majority , against Lore and Loreism. The place is the convention of the German language federation of the Workers (Communist) Party, The time is November 30, 1924.. farce over which we’ cannot even laugh because of the serious °conse- Bittelman speaking: “It is one of the greatest events.in the history of our party, and, I can safely say of the Comintern, when a comrade like Lore admits his mistakes.” ; Bittelman is personified “logic.” When he says that Lore is a good Communist now, he immediately fol- lows it up with logical action. He moves in the C. E. C., first That the opposition in the German federation led by Bedacht is unfit to carry out the desires of the Comin- tern and our party, and, second, That the federation bureau, elected at the convention and overwhelmingly controlled by Lore be approved—thus declaring that while Bedacht cannot be trusted with carrying out Comin- tern decisions Lore can. What are the facts behind this ‘quences it will and must have for our party? . Lore “admitted” that he made a mistake in his stand in thé Levy mat- ter. He said that while Levy was ‘correct in his judgment of the situa- tion, his method of criticism bee criminal. What does that mean to any one but to the representative of the ma- jority, Comrade Bittelman? It means that Levy was right when he said that the March action in 1921 in Germany was a putsch, engineered by some Mullah from Chiwa (meaning a rep- resentative of the Comintern), and carried out by the Communist Party ‘of Germany as.a conspiracy, and not as a revolutionary mass action of the German proletariat. That is what Lore wrote at the time of the March action and the Levy incident. That is what Lore thinks today and even openly admits. Yet, the C. E. ©. (ma- jority) representative proudly declares that the admission of Lore that he had made a mistake in the matter is one of the greatest moments in the life of the Communist International. Lore declared further at this con- vention that he had made a mistake in judging the English labor govern- ment. He, according to, his own words, overestimated. the class, conscious. ness of the English. socialists, Bit- telman is enraptured. by. ‘this. declara- tion and in ee¢stasy he cries out: “Oh, what a wonderful moment, in-my. ‘and that of my party!” Will.any Com- ‘munist. please inform the Leninist- Marxian (pardon the generosity) Bit- telman and his C. B,C, majority friends what Lore’s declaration really meant? Will anyone show to Lore and Bittelman that the difference be- (Continued on Page 5.)