The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 22, 1924, Page 4

Page Four Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Task: WHAT ABOUT MINNESOTA? By C. A. HATHAWAY. (© comrades of the minority have been trying to explain the develop- ments in the Minnesota farmer-labor united front, They say in Minnesota at the present time there exists avstron; sentiment against LaFolletteism and for a class farmer-labor party. They quote articles from Mahoney’s paper to prove their contention. Other mem- bers of the minority group have charg- ed that we have actually made mis- takes during the year and one-half of the most intensive farmer-labor cam- paigning that any section of our party has gone thru. They say ours was a united front with Mahoney and Cram- er—not with the rank and file. Com- trade Wicks even charges that the comrades in active charge of the work here were so enamored by this united front with the top that we refused to carry out his instructions as the representative of the C. E. C. when he instructed us to fight for the election of delegates to the proposed conven- tion of the federated farmer-labor party at the state convention that “organized” the Minnesota farmer- labor federation on September 8, 1923. Comrades, I am going to let you in on a little secret—we did make some mistakes in Minnesota. Furthermore, the active comrades that have direct- ed our party thru all the work of or- ganizing for two conventions of the state federation of labor and four state political conventions and have watch- ed the after effects of the policies fol- lowed, know something of the mis- takes that were made. These conven- tions in Minnesota were not “fake” conventions either, neither were they conventions made up of delegates of party branches only, as was the case in most of the states. These conven- tions were attended in each case by from three to four hundred delegates representing local unions, farmers’ or- ganizations, etc. Furthermore, they were being called in a state that had a functioning farmer-labor party in the field since 1918, and had already established a farmer-labor _leader- ship. Furtheromer, the local unions thruout the state had been organiz- ed politically in a definite political or- ganization since 1919—three years be. fore our party ever thought of tak- ing up the farmer labor issue. They had just elected their candidate to the United States senate which cre- 1 a feeling of gelf-satisfaction on art of the,mank and file which POM Sethedeia be broken down. These Were the conditions that fac- dus when we returned from the con- on of the federated farmer-labor held in Chicago, July 3, 1923. Outside: of myself, our party had no connections in the farmer-labor party. We had very few English-speaking comrades. We had a situation com plicated by three existing organiza- tions—the official farmer-iabor party, the farmers nonpartisan league and the working people’s non-partisan league. All of these were under petty-bourgeoisie leader- ship. Last but not least, we had just two wecks to prepare for a state con- vention of the working people’s league after returning from Chicago. I was the only party member who succeed- ed in being elected asa delegate to that convention. We succeeded in creating a split between Mahoney and Van Lear and forced the calling of another convention to consider ways and means of reorganizing the en tire movement. Before we actually got the call is- sued we had to break with Mahoney by going to the rank and file of the uniops and get them to demand the calling of the convention based on representation from local unions. From the very beginning we started the process of building up our own independent power which we retain to this day in spite of the attack that has been launched on us by Mahoney, Cramer and the reactionaries gener- ally. Our criticism of these leaders was tempered only by the need that the party had for them nationally and only on instructions from the C. E. C. I think, however, that before going any further, Comrade Wicks should be answered. I do not object to criti- cism but the very title of Comrade Wick’s article in the Monday DAILY WORKER, “A Question of Leninist Leadership” makes the blood of every Minnesota comrade boil who had any thing to do with the September cor vention in Minneapolis. We in Minne sota have always had considerable respect for Comrade Lenin’s leader- ship and still have, but we have seen Comrade Wicks in action. Comrade Wicks was sent to Minnesota to as- sist us in applying the united front tactics to the situation here. He was sent by the present minority of the C. B. C., then the majority. He ap- parently misunderstood his instruc- tions—he thought he had been sent on a vacation. As soon as he landed here he became so much engrossed with his personal affairs that he could not take care of anything else. Dur- ing the course of the convention itself his time was fully occupied, After 4 stormy morning session the steering committee appointed by the D. B. ©., made up of Comrade Wangerin, John- son, and myself, tried to get Wicks to go to lunch with the committee to decide on the question of policies at the afternoon session. Comrade Wicks was already booked. Again at sup per time, with the left wing complete. ly disorganized and the right wing led organizations | Comrade Wicks again ignored the committee. Comrade Wicks’ trip to Minnesota was useless, except insofar as our local comrades learned a les- son in what not to do at a conven- tion, Late in the evening session the question of electing the delegates pre- viously referred to, came up. Our committee introduced the resolution and fought for it. It was met by a bitter attack from the reactionaries. Even workers who are now members of the party refused to support us in the ‘fight. We were left absolutely alone with eighteen votes against close to three hundred and fifty. At this point a point of order was raised that no organization had been creat- ed at the convention (only a provi- sional organizing committee had been elected) from which to send dele- jgates and that therefore no funds |were available with which to send | them. The chairman sustained the point at the same time Comrade Johnson withdrew the resolution, the steering committee feeling that if the matter was pulled out the provisional com mittee could still send delegates. Com rade Wicks then showed his ‘Lenin ist” leadership by rushing up the isle and instructing the committee to “split the goddamned thing wide open.” We could not have taken a single delegate with us on such a split and the steering committee re- fused. A caucus of party delegates was called immediately after the ad- journment of the convention, Com: rade Wicks then was busy with his private affairs and did not get back intil the caucus was breaking up at two o’clock in the morning. I do not know whether Comrade Wicks reported to the C. EB. C. or not on his “Leninist” leadership in Minne. sota, but the steering committee did send in a detailed report on the situa: tion including their action on the resolution to send delegates to the federated convention. This , report was mimeographed in full by the pres ent minority and sent to party work- ers together with a letter telling them that this was a model report and that the tactics followed should serve as a guide to them in similar situa- tions. So you will see that if our tactics were in error up until this convention they were shared by the present minority of the C, E. C. So much for Comrade Wicks. Immediately after this convention the present minority started their ne- gotiations with Mahoney relative to the calling of a national convention and from that point on we started our wild orgy of a united front from the top that lasted right up until. the June 17 convention. Mahoney and Cramer, the farmer-labor party and the farmer-labor federation were al! for LaFollette from the beginning. We never carried out our own policy in Minnesota from that time on, we were |trying to develop tactics that would retain for us the support of Mahoney nationally, we were trying to criticise him at home and at the same time create an organizational cleavage from the LaFollette movement, but yet of course, we had to support him in the event that he was nominated. All of these maneuvers made our membership so dizzy that apparently some of them have not. as yet regain- ed their equilibrium. At the second convention of the Minnesota farmerlabor federation held in March of this year, we were concerned only with the one problem of getting the Minnesota party to en- dorse the calling of the June 17 con- }vention. This convention not only gave their endorsement to the calling of a national convention, but the “class” farmer-labor federation gave their endorsement to LaFollette as the candidate to be nominated at that convention. Our local desire to fight on this issue was subordinated to the needs of the national situation. After the repudiation by LaFollette of the June 17 convention, a meet- ing of the state committee was called to decide whether they would contin- ue their support of the convention At this meeting Comrades Hedlund, Johnson and myself launched an at- tack on LaFollette, Mahoney and Cramer raised the slogan in their speeches of “hold the June 17 con- vention and nominate LaFollette” and ‘ven with them fighting for LaFollette e we had a narrow sqeak in the com- nittes. After the C, P. P. A. con- vention July 4, you know what hap- pened to Mahoney and Cramer, well, the same thing happened to the farm- er-labor federation. From its very inception the Minne- sota farmer-labor federation has been a LaFollette organization—we creat- ed it for him. He did not like the name because we had smeared it with red. After July 4, Sinclair, the LaFol- lette campaign manager, first said that they would create their own or- ganization, Mahoney, however, out- generaled them; he called the state committee together and they issued a statement supporting LaFollette and called on the workers to join the or- ganization in order to make the La- Follette campaign effective. Within a few days after this statement was issued, peace was made between the two groups, Sinclair even agreeing to give to the federation a portion of the campaign funds collected within the state. Thruout the federation a fight was mmediately started on the members ta aur complatay in the sul the Workers Party. We were THE DAILY WORKER UPON ONE POLICY WE ARE ALL UNITED A Communist Catechism and that is to Drtur0e Tee Sat, Worker for YS 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 Is 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. To 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. 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. WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA William Z. Foster, Chairman. Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary. charged with a violation of trade un; on discipline because of our support or Comrades Foster and Gitlow. Our sampaign meetings held during the ampaign were not much more than party membership meetings. The La- Sollette wave swept everything before t, even the unions that had previous- y been classed as left wing fell in ine. Active trade unionists were sup- porting Comrades Emme and Young {ahl, but at the same time were sup- ng LaFollette:, We found that all had was a house of cards that shed on our heads as soon as the LaFollette wind came up. Commun- sm had made no inroads on the mass- s.. We had captured convent but we had not succeeded in winning the workers to a revolutionary pro gram, : The experiences in Minnesota con vinces me that the majority is cor rect in their position. There is no class farmer-labor movement in Min. nesota. The federation has ‘become the Minnesota C. P. P. A. If our party is to take over the leadership of the workers in this state it will have to form its united fronts on the basis of the immediate economic and political needs of the working class. By fighting on that basis we can most ctively destroy the influence of Folletteism and develop our party into a mass Communist Party. SLOGANS, SENSIBLE AND OTHERWISE By GERTRUDE WELSH. (Explanation:—-All quoted sen- tences or phrases are taken from the minority thesis, tho in every case, instead of using the words, ‘Workers Party,” or “party,” I have substituted “DAILY WORK- ER,” “newspaper,” “party,” or “press.” Exclamation points are my Own.) UR party is now concentrated on the task of building up the DAILY WORKER, putting it on a fnancial basis that will guarantee its continuation as the surest means of maintaining and spreading the power of Communist ideology. Upon one policy we are all united and that is to insure the DAILY WORKER for 1925; this is the slogan of the paper’s ap, peal for support as published daily on the same page with the discussion of other party tasks. Imagine a split on this policy! Im- agine a minority springing up and maintaining andiloquently: Of course, we agree ‘heartily with the the- ory of upbuilding the DAILY WORK- ER; certainly, we know that it is the only class paper in the United | States; absolutely, we realize that it alone conducts tabor’s offensive against capitalism; but, ye gods of sectarianism, think ye such truths will “penetrate” the “proletarians and poor farmers”? Think ye this task can be performed “merely by a me- chanical addition” of new subscrib- ers? The “sentiment of the masses” is not for the DAILY WORKER, but for a class farmer-labor press! And with this for a starter, tl the, mi- nority would set about composing a thesis, quite a complicated affair, which might contain, however, the following epigrammatic summary: “The campaign for a farmer-labor ‘press,’ if conducted upon a correct conception of the united front tactic, will not obscure and hide the ‘DAILY WORKER’ or substitute some other ‘paper’ for it (!) On the contrary, it will bring the ‘DAILY WORKER’ to the fore as never before (!) It will make our ‘paper’ stand out as the leader in the struggle in the inter- est of the workers and poorer farm- ire” (3!) What a travesty of wisdom would this be, what ridicplosity, yet does it differ in import from the C. E. C. minority’s attitude toward the plans agreed on by the majority for strengthening the Workers Party? I suggest that, if the minority were scrupulously consistent, (my im- agination trembles with the strain) they would not be participating in the DAILY WORKER drive nor sponsor- ing the undiluted DAILY WORKER slogan, but instead, would be trying to form a “left class ‘paper’ bloc” in the LaFolletteized columns of Ma- honey’s Minnesota Trade Union Ad- vocate, with the view, as they would say, of “splitting away” his readers and “absorbing” them into our sub- scription list! Strangest of all reads the analogous tale of what would constitute this “splitting away” process: Mahoney's readers would not be referred to the DAILY WORKER for information or guidance--by no means; the minority wouldn’t let them catch sight of it for fear of stopping them after they | vided less, ’tis said they might incidentally be told that these self-appointed. dis- ruptionists all belong to the DAILY WORKER staff. Out of the minority’s sentimental sense of duty, perforce, ht they hear of the DAILY WORK- ER, as of an old-time sweetheart whom one remembers fondly, tho mostly in one’s dreams. What the Mahoneyites Would “be proragandized with, of ‘course, would ‘be a “class tarmerlabor ‘press’.” ‘And yet, upon a more careful reading of the minor- ity thesis, one might conclude that they wouldn't hear so much about this, either. For the minority might not have a shred of a suggestion as to how the “class farmer-labor ‘press’” should be organized; in fact, might not be at all sure if it ever would be organized—that’s the hell of it. What the minority thesis might re- mark is: “The inevitability of the formation of a farmer-labor ‘press’ is not the basis of our campaign. We use this slogan as a means of agita- tion and to establish contact with workers who are moving toward inde- pendent ‘newspaper’ action, to win them for the ‘DAILY WORKER’ and to build our ‘paper.’ It is quite possible that the actual organization of a class farmer-labor ‘paper’ which will establish itself firmly and function over a period of time will not be the line of development, but that the best of those elements which we bring un- der our influence and leadership thru the campaign under the slogan “For a class farmer-labor ‘press’” can be ab- sorbed into the ‘DAILY WORKER’ without passing thru the stage of ac- tual organization into a separate ‘paper’.” So, coming down to just plain news- paper “facts for workers,” what the Mahoneyites would hear, all-in-all and above all and beyond all, reveals it- self as naught but a slogan, a naked, fleshless skeleton of a slogan, and this slogan, friends, Romans and mega- phone men, is, as has been mention- ed before, nothing more nor less than “For a class farmer-labor ‘pres: What effect its reiterated utteranc- es would have on the Mahoneyites, 1 am at a loss to predict (tho they have a bad reputation for knifing Commun- ists in the back, just how they would handle mesmerists is problematical.) But I am wondering a little what is to become of the DAILY WORKEx in the meantime. Whether there would be any paper left or not would depend on how many journalists and readers the minority could mobilize into be- coming phrase-mongers. Perhaps, after all, the loss of those who would be tempted by such word-salads would be insignificant, and the DAILY WORKER might discover that its sub- scription list would grow fatter and healthier on a better-balanced diet. But J forget, my analogy has carried me away; it is not the DAILY WORK- ER that is at stake, but only (!) the Workers Party. We all on the policy to insure the DAILY WORKER, but minority comrades refuse to ac- cept the slogan of insure the Workers Party. While rejoicing over their meryntoeged with Communist - prin- ciples in supporting a Communist press, and none other; neverthele: how can we help but despair at this sien i PN of the minority's mind: di- against itself, penny-wise and had been “set into motion,” Basser srw te cmb More. Questions and Answers. By MAX BEDACHT and JAY LOVESTONE, Question—If there is no farmer- " labor party In Germany, France, or Soviet Russia, why talk about one in the United States? Why not throw out the slogan “Follow the Workers Party”? Mf the German Communists don’t demand a farmer-labor party, why should the American Communists demand one? Answer—This is the worst possible kind of Communism. In nearly every European country the struggles of the Communist Parties for leadership over the working masses is a struggle between the Communists and the so- cial-democrats of some type or other. In short, the struggle takes place in a distinct working class political movement. In the United States the situation is totally different. In order for the Communists to establish the political leadership over the working masses in the United States, the workers must be separated ideological- ly from capitalism. Until the work- srs learn in increasing numbers that their class interests demand conscious nolitical action against and not with the capitalists the leadership of the ‘ommunists over the workers cannot /yecome a vital issue to them.” Wheth- r or not the establishment of such ‘ommunist leadership over these workers is accepted simultaneously vith the breaking away of the prole- arian masses from the ideological ,»ondage of capitalism will not be de- cided by the sound of a slogan “Fol- low the Workers Party” as much as the quality of the actual leadership supplied by the Workers Party in the gradual establishment of the poli- tical independence of the workers from the capitalists. Question—tinstead of a farmer- « tabor united front, why should we not build a whole series of united fronts on immediate problems? Wouldn't this be the golden key to the solution of avoiding wrong united fronts from the top only? Answer—It is the duty of the Com- munists to help the working class to assimilate the experiences of its strug- gle. These struggles may have vari- ous forms and may assume different objectives. But no matter how vari- ous the forms and objectives of these struggles may ybe, there is always.one final paramount experience that we, Communists, must seek to have the workers derive out of these struggles; an intensified consciousness of their need for political action as a class against the exploiters. To get this idea into the heads of the masses it is not sufficient to form a united front here or there in this or that party of the country for defensive action against an injunction and elsewhere in the country against an open shop drive against the capitalists. It is necessary to unify and co-ordinate sep- arate actions on a national scale thru the introduction of one unifying slo- gan which holds good and megts a mass need in the north as well as in the south and in the east as well as in the west simultaneously. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Workers Party, if it wants to be- come a mass Communist Party, to propose and organize in all the differ- ent struggles of the workers in the various parts of the country united front tactics. It is necessary that in all these actions there continually be emphasized the idea of and need for a political union of all the workers in the country. Regarding the argument that a F.-L. P. campaign cannot be carried on as a united front movement from below, we need only cite the history of our own party's experience The present minority of the C. E. C. this year, and last year when it was the majority, has had to wage a continuous strug- gle with the Foster-Cannon group against their conception of united fronts from the top. One of the bit- terest fights in the last convention of the party was waged over a criticism made by the Ruthenberg-Pepper group against the present majority for its wrong application of the united front in Chicago because that united front was made exclusively at the top with such fake progressive labor lead- ers as Mr, Fitzpatrick, Mr. Buck and Mr, Nockels, It was in Chicago where we were presented last year with a glaring ex- ample of the united front from the top only The opposition of Foster to our proceeding with a vigorous F. F. L. P. organization campaign was bas- ed on his fear of breaking with such “progressive” labor leaders with whom “precious” contact had been estab- lished If the Foster group had not been pursuing the wrong united front tactics from the top only and dis- regarding the rank and file, the fol- lowers of Fitzpatrick below, the Fos- ter group would not have feared so much a split with these labor bureau- crats and they would have gone along with our organizational aim of win- fing these masses away from Fitz- patrick and Co, ‘The best proof of the tact that such tactics, a8 pursued by Comrade Fos- ver, were united front tactics from the top only is to be found in the small number of Fitzpatrick follow- ers who went with bona after our break with him, x ‘ ‘ Question—How much truth is " there. in. the contention of the Foster-Cannon group that since there is no other party at present ready to lead the workers, then the workers will have to turn to. the Workers Party for leadership? Answer—Such an attitude is a trav- esty on Marxism. It is a confession in bankruptcy. This argument might hold water if the workers were con- scious of their lack of leadership. The workers being conscious of their lack of leadership, in some need of leadership and with no competition in sight for us, would of course, then turn to the W. P. But that is a Fata Morgana mirage which haunts the ma- jority. The sorry fact is that the workers, as a mass, as a Class, are not at all conscious of their need for new, revolutionary, proletarian leadership. The working masses still follow cheer- fully and quite often blindly the lead- ership of capitalism. To wait. for them to turn to us for leadership is equivalent to a declaration of bank- ruptcy of our party—to a liquidation of our party. Question—Is the C. E. C. majority * fooling the members: when it maintains that “The C. E. C. is seek- ing the advice of the Comintern on the labor party policy which will become known in due time.” Answer—Of course, the Foster-Can- non group is fooling the membership when it says that they are simply misrepresenting the facts. At branch meetings, in an effort to create favor- vble sentiment thru the cheapest kind of gutter demagogy, C. E. C. majority “logicians,” like Bittelman, yell that they are taking their case to the mem- bership while the minority is always talking about the C. I. The Foster- Cannon group voted againct the mo- tion the minority of the C. E. C. made to'accept the proposal of the E. C. of the ©. L. to have it consider and act SHALL WE Monday, December 22, 1924 op eemaameemcnee n the party controversy at its enlarge ed session scheduled for February. In the discussion of this motion, Foster, the public leader of the U. E. C. ma jority, and Cannon, the leader behind the back-drop, even accused us of try: ing to cheat the membership by re ferring the question for decision te the C I. prior to a party convention, These comrades might,have made the effort to learn that the C. L has time and again made it its, business to con sider the problems of its various sec tions in order to help them and in or der to prevent their making mistakes 1 Question—Whoezls responsible " for the lie that the minority members of the C. E. C. were opposed to giving the membership the chane to discuss? Answer—The menibership know exactly who was responsible for this lie. The facts are these. Immediate ly after the publication of the eleo tion statement the minority members of the C. E. C. insisted on the pub lication of its election statement and a discussion of these two documents in the press. Our subsequent efforts to have the C. E. C. act on this mat ter, as we requested, fdiled. When the C. L. proposal to consider our question arrived we declared to the C, I. that we are planning to open the party dis cussion immediately and will be glad to comply with its decisions. It was the minority pressure that forced the majority of the C, By C. to.print ou election statement and thus practical ly bring about the opening of discus sion thruout the party. At the political committee of Decem: ber 17, it was the majority of the Cc. E. C. that forced the adoption of a motion over the opposition of the Marxist group to limit discussion tc one page. We made every effort te have the DAILY WORKER continue to allot two pages for the party dis cussion, at least until after all. the membership meetings are over. Ar parently the ideas entertained by tt Foster group. of giving the membe ship a chance to discuss are about ax correct as its views on the united front tactics. RETREAT? By WALLACE T. METCALFE. ‘HE formation of a mass farmer- labor party in the United States must be based upon FACTS. Certain principles must guide us in the work of encouraging the formation or .per- forming the organization of the united front. A united front based merely upon exploited farmers that has not the backing of the industrial worker back in the mines, mills and factories, is like going into battle with flags flying and the troops with BLANK ammunition, In the United States most of our Communist membership rests in the cities and towns where industrialism dominates. Very few of the city or town workers know anything about the problems confronting the rural workers. There is a bond of sympa- thy existing between the industrial and the rural worker, but there is no actual CONTACT, Our problem, there- fore, is to bridge this gap and bring about some understanding between the exploited industrial and farm workers, and as a Communist Party we should take the lead and determine just how we propose to accomplish this. The LaFollette retreat from Wash- ington and the solemn edict issued by Mr. Gompers that labor will con- tinue its policy of “watchful waiting” shows us that any program of organ- izing a united front between the city and country must be carried out by the Communists. If the Communists fail to tackle this task then who will? Shall we detach several, or as many as our party deems necessary, of our organ- izers and have them organize the mass farmer-labor party or shall we do this thru the calling of a conven- tion. The desertion of the St. Paul convention by the so-called liberal la- bor and farmer organizations and their stampede to the LaFollette ban- ners is no reflection upon our party for the part it took in organizing that convention. Some of our comrades view with humor the St. Paul convention and ridicule our position. The fact is that the membership of our party respond- ed nobly and viewed with favor the contact we made, This showed that our lines of contact with farmer-labor organizations were weak and when the order came to CHARGE we found that our attacking forces were only Communists. , Had not LaFollette performed his a la A. Mitchell Palmer act of de- nouncing the Communists previous to the St. Paul convention, our party would have needed every Communist delegate attending. We had no FIRM hold upon the outside organizations taking part and who deserted the con- vention and therefore when it came to the zero hour the farmer-labor par- ty entered into “no man’s land,” nominated its candidates and then beat a hasty retreat home and de- clared the WAR was over. The St. Paul cdndidates were removed from the battle zone and we next charged under our own banners and with our party can The Workers Party did carry out a wonderful campaign’ and as a rant and file member I feel that muct credit is due the party for same. Wé« went thru the campaign and brough the message of Communism to thc workers and farmers far and near We are endeavoring to secure a large! membership by reaping the harves we sowed during the election period Nevertheless, there is a large elemen in American life that will support cer tain policies put forth by our part; and do this willingly while on th: other hand they are not ripe enoug) to accept our entire program. Shal we neglect this condition? Shall w: fail to secure this support for th: cause of Communism or shall we le the next ‘move come from THE) rather than our party? é Our party is young and most of o membership are young folks. We a. all striving to do what is best fo: our party and to accomplish our task we must build with the material 01 hand and only thru the combined e! forts of all can we expand our in fluence, ‘We are now engaged in debatin: the question and following this w must ACT. This dexends upon th merits of either arguments brough out during this period of debate. Shal we stand isolated or shall we use thi opportunity to extend our influence W ehave taken steps to follow up an secure what advantages we can fré our own election campaign. Are Ww going to proceed to organize thos that were bambozzled by LaFollett an dwho are now in a better conditio: to see our position clearer? Are Ww ready to organize them into a “mas farmer-labor party? Are we as Communists prepared t issue this ULTIMATUM to the e ploited farmers and workers that th can either join our party or rem outside to be vietimized by tv residing on Broadway, New York Cit; and pseudo workers who are in th. fight for the thrills it affords? Sk we do what we can with workers + farmers outside who are more in s; pathy with our party than build up with them a po of defense? Nealigiel sinlbiga It seems to me, comrades, that o immediate task the exten party in posit advantage s that when the order is the united front/will into ¢ of the problems’ ie = fronting /those we seek to win Our opposition rests in the ty as. Com. to our cause, Some will come way and STOP, Does that mean that to ALWAYS be the advance We must extend to the | such organizations reeruit forces to join in with the advance guard, We. can either masses or let them continue tobe: ing class itself and our duty as. munists is to win as many as possible we also STOP? Is it not our stand? masses’ places of refuge and is our party. (Continued aabeanecy tf