The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 20, 1924, Page 9

The Discussion on Party Tasks A SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC AFFAIR (Continued from Page 4.) tween the socialist and the Commun- ist is not merely a degree of class con- sciousness; that the Communist’ is working class conscious, while the so- clalist is bourgeois class conscious. Lore’s declaration in the matter was not an excuse but an admission of guilt,,an admission that he is not. a Communist, But Bittelman says: “Never mind, Lore is worthy to carry out the Comintern polictes.” Social Democrat Calls Bedacht “Mos- ’ cow Agent.” . --But aside from these “excusés”” of) Lore, there. was the atmosphere of the whole. convention.. Before the eyes and ears of the convention a specta- tor, a member of the party; one Dr. Aronson, demanded to know from Be- dacht what he gets “paid from Mos- cow.” While I consider it an honor to be accused of being an agent of Moscow in that convention, an honor that might not be appreciated by Lore, still, the treacherous tendencies of the man making the accusation is obvious. The convention did not rise as one man to protest but calmly continued in its rut. When asked by Bedacht whether he was sent by Abe Cahan to ask this question, Dr. Aronson, a very close friend of Lore, answered with more truth than poetry, that he was a social-democrai for fifty years. The only excuse that the represent- ative of the C. E. C. majority at this convention, Bittelman, can now bring forward for the convention permitting to go unchallenged, the behavior of Dr. Aronson is, that Bedacht did not appeal to the convention for redress. I ask any comrade with common sense and with Communist spirit why I should bring to the attention of the convention a crime to which the whole convention was witness. Every criticism of the Communist International was greeted with ap- plause in this convention. Lore, when justifying his attacks on Zinoviev, by declaring that the president of the Comintern cannot claim the infallibil- ity of a pope, was acclaimed with en- thusiasm. Lore’s Communism. Lore’s interpretation of Leninism and Bolshevism as less discipline and more democracy carried the conven- tion with him. Almost every mani- festation of the convention was a jus- tification for the judgment that it was not a Communist but a social-emo- A Communist Catechism Some Questions and Answers By MAX BEDAGHT and JAY LOVESTONE. (We hereby begin the first of a series of questions and answers bear- ing on the problems confronting the party in the present controversy, We ask every Communist to study these questions and answers carefully.) Question—What is the purpose of * Communist United Front Tactics? Answer—The objective of Commun- ist united front tactics is to separate the working and poor farming masses from the reactionary leadership and to win leadership over these masses for the Communist Party. ~ Question—What is a good bs * munist Slogan? Answer—The Foster-Cannon group maintains that the only criterion for the correctness of a slogan is its meet- ing an existing well developed genera) mass demand. The Bittelman logi- ‘cians yell that at present nobody de- mands @ farmer-labor party, and, therefore, the slogan of a farmer-labor ‘party is no good’ a This reasoning” order. to fit the requirements’ of our desire to wing working class leader- ship, our slogans must not follow ‘mass demands, movements, but must precede them, crystallize them and give articulate expression to them. demanding it? Haye you ever heard cratic convention. But the representative of the C. E. C. majority, in full agreement with the policy of that body toward Lore during the whole past year, stands serenely before the convention and before the whole party and declares: “Lore had recanted. He is now worthy of our confidence. He surely can be trusted with the task of. car- rying out the policies of the C. L, a task that Bedacht cannot. be. ‘entrust- ed with.” Lore has reformed! Yes—he shows his reformed ou in“all ‘its: beauty, in an editorial pub- lished in the New-York Volkszeitung of December 12. Speaking about the attacks of the Herriot government against the French Communist Party he says that the French Communists prove that “their ostensible intentions of overthrowing the government would not serve the interests of ‘Mos- cow’ which is supposed to be direct- ing them. If the Soviet government, as is constantly being contended by the capitalist press, is placing great hopes in obtaining a loan from the Herriot government, it would natural- ly do nothing to nip these hopes in the bud, especially as the French Com- munist movement is not yet strong enough to make an _ insurrectionary movement at the present time ap- pear hopeful.” There you have it. From the Ber- lin international of Rocker to the Washington international of Hughes- Coolidge, the Soviet government has always been accused that the C. IL. is nothing but its agent; and that the C. I’s actions are directed by the commissariat of foreign affairs of the U. S. S. R. ‘ Here is a member of the central executive committee of the American section of the Communist Internation- al openly adopting and applying this same argument to disprove any insur- rectionary intentions of the Commun- ist Party of France. Of course, the majority of our C. E. C. will find that perfectly in or- der—because Lore has reformed! But the halo of the reformed sinner and new saint, Lore,.refiects sufficient light to bring out into relief the “loyalty” of the C. E-C. majority to the C. I. and permit ‘the membership of the Workers (Communist) Party to pass final and. decisive judgment on it at the next convention. se Question—Why ask for a farmer- " labor party when the masses aren’t demanding one? Answer—This is still. worse Com- munism for a party which seeks to be the leader of the working class. The. fact that the. masses-the whole working class ora considerable por tion. thereof—are not clearly demand- ing a farmer-labor party does not mean that the Communists.should dis- card this slogan. Why.does. the ma- jority thesis contain. the, slogan, “For a labor congress?” Are any. masses a single worker in your shop, milt.or mine talk about a labor. congress. or even mention it? .The masses know far less about a labor congress than they know about a farmer-labor party —a form of political organization that has an historical place and tradition inthe American labor movement. The demand for a labor congress amongst the masses is insignificant when compared with the demand for a labor party. 4 Question—Why organizes a party ‘to compete with the Workers Party? Answer—Only a few months ago the Foster-Cannon group was so anx- ious to form a labor party that they were begging the Mahoneys and Fitz- patricks to become the leaders of such a party and were announcing from the housetops that the Commun- eases mp ners SS st cst eh S D a ee ee ee ees ists did not have any intention and did not want to become the leaders of a labor party. At that time the Foster-Cannon group did not argue that a farmer-labor party would be a competing party. Nor did the Com- munist International ever think that a labor party organized on the basis of the organizations of the workers with the Communists holding a strate- gic place in it could be a competing party with a Communist Party organ- ized on the basis of the individual elear, class conscious revolutionists. Otherwise the’ Communist Interna- tional would never have instructed us that: “The first task of the Workers Party is to become a mass Communist party of .workers. MH can fulfill this task only by most actively participat- ing in the establishment of a labor party which will embrace all elements* of the working class by establishing a bond with the farmers who are at present in a state of strong fermen- tation.” If a labor party of this sort can be said to be a competing party today it could as well have been said by the Communist International and would have been said by the Communist International a few months ago when this decision was made. Only a me- chanical, un-Marxian and non-Com- munist can come to the conclusion, because the campaign for a farmer- labor party is like every other cam- paign—only a method to establish leadership. The Workers Party will not establish a farmer-labor party as the leader of the American masses, but it tries to establish its own leader- ship over these masses by means of such campaigns as that of “for a class farmer-labor party.” To show how absurd this trump card argument of. the Foster-Cannon group is, it needs only to be applied to other campaigns and other slogans. Applying the logic of the Foster-Can- non group to the campaign for the relief of unemployment, the argument could be made that such a campaign is no good because it may bring relief and thus spoil our chances for fur- ther developing proletarian unrest against capitalism. Surely Foster and Cannon are not yet ready to say this openly. Perhaps this thought is really in their heads and has been the basis of their resistance to all. campaigns on unemployment proposed by the minority members of the central ex- ecutive committee, 5 Question—The Central Execu- ‘! tive. Committee majority spokes- men are always shrieking: ‘Where is the sentiment. for a class farmer- labor party? Name any labor organi- zation where there is sentiment for such a farmer-labor united front?” Answer—Now for some outstanding facts showing the strong undercur-’ rent of sentiment for the building of an independent political party of the workers and exploited farmer—a class farmer-labor party—in the ranks of the masses. 1. At the conference of fifty dele gates representing approximately 10,000 progressive miners in the Pitts- burgh bituminous district No. 5, of the United Mine Workers of America, held on Sept. 21, the plank “for a farmer-labor party” was unanimously adopted. On Oct. 6, the same plank was reaffirmed at another conference. The industrial organizer of our party, Comrade Foster, in Pittsburgh on Nov. 30, did not dare to blink totally this strong demand of the miners when he revised this plank of the program to read “independent political action by the working class thru a militant political organization of its own.” Did Foster mean Workers Party or farmer-labor party? Or perhaps he meant the LaFollette party? Why did he not say what he meant? 2, In the conference for progres- sive political action of Massachusetts, the minority demand for a farmer- labor party as against a fraudulent liberal third capitalist party was strong and clear cut. Had our central executive committee given the party members in Massachusetts proper guidance instead of an overdose of phrases in a tapeworn manifesto, the party, thru this labor party slogan, could have struck an effective blow against LaFollettism and could have established our leadership amongst an increased mass of workers in the Bay. State. 3. In California our party member ship in the trade unions is faced with a similar situation where we will be compelled to throw away a splendid’ opportunity to lock horns with the labor fakers simply because the cen- tral executive committee majority has issued a bull against our comrades using the farmer-labor slogan even where there is a mass demand for it. 4. In Minnesota the demand for organization of a farmer-labor party is so strong that even the labor fak- ers and fake progressives like Ma- honey are forced to pretend to talk for such a party and at the same time to insist that the Communists must be driven out of such a party. Here, the sabotaging activities of Mr. Sin- clair, LaFollette’s agent, have espec- ially enraged many workers into insis- tence that a party of their own be or- ganized nationally. 5. At the last American Federation of Labor convention, despite the fact that we failed to elect a single Com- munist or even a handful of militant delegates, the demand for a farmer- labor party was voiced in resolutions proposed by the Molders’ Union, the International Potters’ Union and the Stone Cutters’ Association. 6. A perusal of the labor press convinces one that the demand for a labor party is increasing in strength and insistence. Typical of this de- mand is the declaration to be found in recent issues of the Upholsterers’ Journal, WHAT’S. THE USE OF A LEADER WITHOUT AN ARMY? By THOMAS MYERSCOUGH. OW that the line is closely drawn on the C,.E. C. of the party and the battle is to determine whether the majority or. minority, thesis shall be the guide of our immediate future ac- tivity, we, the rank and file (pardon the use of trade union, phraseology) will do well to study the facts that present themselves so - boldly. The majority thesis, either summed up or boiied down, says “Build the Workers Party.” The minority state- ment treated similarly means “Build the Workers Party,” but reminds us of the necessity of “Reaching the masses,” in order that we may ac- complish that very thing. That is my understanding of what the minor- ity means when they urge the slogan of “For a mass farmer-labor party.” No one can deny, that in order to build anything, either the Workers Party or any other essential thing, the material with which to build must first be assembled and molded to make for stability, otherwise the Structure will crumble and fall. Hence, ‘ 5 I am with the minority. Are we to conclude that the major ity of the C. EB. C. are in favor of isolating the Workers Party or of forming a “Holy Trinity” with the S. L. P. and the proletarian party. Perhaps they are desirous of turn- ing it into a discussion club such as the two last named parties are, satis- fying themselves with quoting Marx once in a while, maybe holding a de- bate with someone occasionally. One thing is certain and that is, if they are Communists, they cannot be quit- ters, They must recognize. that we are not yet, by any means, enjoying Communism, that Communism is an end and.that the Workers Party, the Communist movement in the United States, is a means to that. end. Comrade Manley says he has had his fill of; farmer-labor ‘parties, but I am located in a part of the territory that he willbe called upon to visit in his new duties as eastern industrial organizer, where he will find a grow. ing sentiment for such a party and (Continued on next page.) 4