The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 23, 1924, Page 4

Page Four THE DAILY WORKER Tuesday, December 23, 1924 eee Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks: A FEW DEFINITIONS. By EARL R. BROWDER. ‘ARMER-LABOR PARTY: A poll- tical coalition of trade unions, farmers’ organizations, and all “work- ers’ parties” for parliamentary pur- poses. Communist Tactics Within a Farm- ermLabor Party: Relentlessly to com- bat the illusion that such parliament- ary combinations can win gains for the workers, and by proposing con- crete action for partial aims to lead the workers to the revolutionary struggle and to the leadership of the Communist Party—the only real class party. eee The minority thesis clamors for “a farmer-labor party fighting the class battles of workers and farmers.” Comrade Ruthenberg told us what the minority means by this when he said (Workers’ Monthly, November, page 22): “Even tho dominated by’ conserva- tive labor leaders, a party created by the C. P. P. A., based upon the labor organizations it represented, would have been a labor party.” “A party based upon the economic organ- izations of the workers and farmers would be compelled in some degree to fight for the economic interests of these two classes.” “8 Is it permissible for the Commun- ists to participate in a farmer-labor party, or to advocate the formation of such a party, unless at the same time they carry on a relentless struggle against the illusion that such a move- ment will “fight the battles of the working class”? It is not! The Fifth Congress of the Comin- tern warned against just such ideas as those of our farmer-laborite Com- Mmunists. It said: “It became quite clear at the Fifth Congress that representatives of right wing tendencies . . had attempt- ed to distort the tactics of the united front... Into a close political alliance and organical coalition ‘of all workers’ parties’ . . The C. I. resolutely condemns this petty-bour- geois tendency.” "es ‘When is the slogan of a farmer-labor party a correct slogan for revolution- ists? Only when it conforms to the requirements of all united front slo- gans, of which the Fifth Congress said: “A mere formula is not enough . the parties of the Comintern in the present period very often do not know how to apply the tactics of the united front . . with the result that these tactics run the dan- ger of being transformed from a revo- lutionary Bolshevik method to oppor- tunist tactics and the source of revi- sionism.” “All attempts to interpret these tac- tics as a political coalition with coun- terrevolutionary social democratic parties, are opportunism and are repu- diated by the Comintern.” se The Fifth Congress told us how to apply the united front tactic; and its instructions left no room for a farmer- labor party slogan after the mass movement for a farmerlabor party had disappeared. Here are a few quotations from the thesis of the Fifth Congress: “The revolutionary united front tactics can be correctly applied only when each section, fully conscious of the dangers of those tactics and with- out adopting mechanical formulae, sets itself the concrete tasks of win- ning the masses in the fight for de- finite daily aims and daily demands.” “If these tactics are applied whole- }sale and according to stereotyped | formula, they will lose all their signi- ficance and will even have the oppo- site effect.” “We Communists, by ably conduct- ing the tactics of the united front, will win over to our side considerable sections of the rank and file social- democrats in the economic and subse- quently in the political fight.” “The partial demands we put for- ward must have practical bearings on life; i.e. they must be such as will be supported by the wide masses of the toilers.” It is our task: “To lead the-economic struggles in such a way that the main strength is concentrated on the creation of or- gans of the united front from below (strike committees, factory councils), and to point out to the working mass- es the political significance of these struggles.” 72 8 The words of the Fifth Congress of the Communist International are in themselves the very best refutation and condemnation of the minority thesis, which sets up the abstract slogan of “a farmer-labor party to fight the class battles of the workers and farmers” as the only possible form of the united front on the political field. In the minority thesis we have the American expression of that ‘inter- national right wing tendency which the Fifth Congress warned us against. The minority is wrong. The C. E. C. thesis points the only correct road for the revolutionary struggle. CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION FROM A RANK AND FILE MEMBER G. KOSTIS. = minority of the C. E. C. is ready to launch a campaign for a labor party and compete with LaFol- lette for the formation of such a party. The majority of the C. E. C. on the other hand, scared from the noise cre- ated around that slogan by the minor- ity, or even because they have not the courage to admit the serious mis- takes committed in the past by the entire C. EB. C. in the application of | the united front tactic in regards to the farmer-labor party, comes forth with the declaration that “we are not opposed to the labor party in prin- ciple.” It is high time for us the rank and file members of the party whose pro- letarian instincts have not been be- fuddled by negotiations and dicker- ings with the Mahoneys and Hillmans and who have no fears of losing our influence as leaders of the party, to raise our voice and declare most em- phatically to both groups of ihe C. E. C. that we are “in principle” and “always” against the establishment of a labor party; that we believe along with the Fifth World Congress; that the only “class farmer-labor party” of a given country is its Communist Party; and that any other farmer-la- bor party is necessarily opportunistic and will eventually become the last bulwark of capitalism. The United Front and the Farmer- Labor Party. The Fifth Congress directed the Communist Parties to apply the tac- tic of the united front “from below” by raising slogans for immediate de- mands, in order to expose the. oppor- tunism of the leaders of the. reform- istic economic or political organiza- tions of the workers, on the one hand, and on the other to win influence and leadership of the masses for revo- lutionary action. The Fifth Congress gave instructions to apply the united front tactic from “below,” as there The minority is unable to under- stand the spirit and the practical aim of the tactic of the united front and brazenly proclainis in its thesis that the only application of this tactic in the political field is to unite ourselves with the non-existent farmer- labor party and because that party does not exist, let us build it our- selves and make it a “class party” jat that! It is impossible. for me to | understand by what labyrinth of rea- | soning the minority succeeded in reaching this conclusion, but IT must admit that, if the conclusion reached has no other practical value, it will at least give a chance to the comrades of the other countries, who need a little diversion during these days of white terror and persecutions, to laugh at our expense. Why the Minority Wants a Farmer- Labor Party. Besides its funny aspect, the con- clusions reached by the minority, has also its tragic side, that is, it shows clearly to what extent the minority is influenced by opportunistic tend- encies. We can see from its thesis and the discussion that followed, that the minority wants to build the labor party for the following two main rea- sons: first, because they are afraid ‘hat other opportunists, outside of the party, will overtake them and build his farmer-lahor party and so the mi- ority will lose the chance of leading ach a party. It is exactly for this eason that they have stuck both ears co the ground to feel where this so much talked about “sentiment” of the workers is leaning to. And they stress so much the importance of this “sentiment” in their discussion, that even the majority of the C, E. C. fell for it. Secondly, because they believe that thru the labor party we will be able to fool the workers who are not as yet ready or willing to become members of the Workers Party and thus we will have another revolution- also is the possibility of its applica-|ary (?) mass party besides the Work- won from us to avoid. tactic of the united front can be effect- ed with organizations with which we could form a united front from below or from the top, that is with organiza- tiows already existing and not with non-existent ones. Therefore, the tac- tic of the united front deals with REALITIES and not with BVENT- UA‘ITIES. The creation then of a farfer-labor party-is not an applica tior of the united front tactic fh the political fleld, as the minority of the ©. Hi. C. wants us to believe, but the ‘the top,” which it cautions ers Party, and hasten in this manner All this means, that the | the coming of the revolution, In reply to their first contention we say, that we do not share their fears, for the simple reason that we have not the ambition to become the lead- ers of a reformistic party; on the contrary, we, feel that it is our duty to fight ideologically any attempt to build such a party, and in case that this party is established, in spite of our opposition, to expose its reform- ist program thru the tactic of the united front and to lead the labor unions, of which we will be members, srossest misinterpretation of this tac-/und which would compose that party, to the path of the class struggle, bear ing always in mind our immediate aim which is the weakening of the power of the bourgeoisie and the freeing of the minds of the workers from oppor- tunist illusions. I will add just a few more words on the famous “sentiment” of the work- ers. The whole political situation of the last two years in America shows clearly that the workers who are for an independent political action, are not inspired by the ideology of the class struggle, but are permeated by the petty bourgeois psychology of reform- ism and class collaboration. They do not want class action. but “indepen- dent” parliamentary action and conse- quently they are not for a class revo- lutionary party, but they want to or- ganize a party which will strive for parliamentary reforms. Now, instead of trying, as it is our duty as a class conscious vanguard of the working class, to change this sentiment of the workers into a revo- lutionary one, calling upon them to fight along with us for our class in- terests and showing them, thru their daily struggles against the bourgeoisie the illusion of reformism and parlia- mentarism, we are called upon by the minority of the C. B. C, to instill more methodically into the minds of the workers the dangerous psychology of parliamentarism, and even take up the initiative of building such a reform- ist party, which by necessity wili be counter-revolutionary, no matter how the minority pleases to call it. We will now take up their seconé argument. The minority, reading the thesis of the Fifth Congress, strucl: upon the paragraph stating that a Communist Party in order to lead the workers to the revolution, must be a mass party. Thereupon the minority, in its eagerness to immediately bring about the revolution and realizing that the workers in America are not as yet ready to join en masse the Workers Party, conceived the grandiose idea of building a camouflage Communist mass party. The minority evidently believes that the realization of the revolution de- pends exclusively upon the activity of a Communist Party, and it is this idea that drives them to imagine the craziest schemes for immediate re- sults. We can here, therefore, call to their attention the two. main factors necessary for the realization of the revolution, and these are the follow- ing: First, the collapse of the eco- nomic structure of: the bourgeoisie, with the consequent weakening of its economic and therefore its political power, and secondly, the will of the workers for revolutionary action. The first one, which by the way, is the most important, is created by the very contradictions of the ‘capitalist sys- tem, and the duty of the Communist Party is to work unceasingly for the realization of the second factor. This task requires heavy sacrifices and daily struggles on the part of our party, struggles based on the tactic of the united front—as formulated in the thesis of the majority of the C. E. C.—struggles aiming to the revolu- tionization of the minds of the mass- es and not cultivating the reformistic spirit. But the minority cannot wait. It wants immediate results and be- lieves that we can succeed in achiev- ing them by reformistic manipulations and parliamentary acrobatics. What is a Communist Mass Party? A few words as to what the term “Communist Mass Party” means. For a Communist Party to be a mass party, does not necessarily mean that it must number millions in member- ship. This, even after the success of the revolution, is. neither: possible nor desirable, if the members are not real Communists (see the recent weeding out of doubtful elements from Communist Parties), But it means —and this is very essential—thagoit must have the influence and the lead- ership of large masses of workers for revolutionary action. Every Commun- ist worthy of the name is expected to possess such elementary knowledge, but it seems that the minority lacks this knowledge and for this reason is only interested in securing the lead- ership of the masses, ignoring entirely where, the kind of leadership propos- ed by them, will lead to. I will close my criticism of the thesis of the minority with the ex- ample of the Communist Party of Greece. That young party hes not more than three thousand members, yet it is a groat factor in the poli- tical life of that country, just because it succeeded in winning the leadership of the trade unions, by taking part in their daily struggles. The workers ot Greece are not members of the Communist Party, except the above mentioned small minority, yet the comrades of Greece never for a mo- ment conceived the idea to build a labor party as proposed by the minor- ity of our C. B. C. On the contrary, they always fought and until now very successfully, the formation of farmer- labor parties, which the opportunists have tried to foist upon the working class. ‘The workers of Greece have always followed the Communist Party in its struggles, not because it proclaimed thru its press, that it is the only genuine party of the working class (this we can do ourselves very easily), but because they have found the par- ty always by their side and leading them in their daily struggles against the bourgeoisie. Stating the above, I am not. attempt. ing to underestimate the ‘Importance | bear /of the huccuaiam strength of a Com! BROWDER—A STRANGER TO FACTS By MAX BEDACHT. ERE it fast coloring that our ma- jority applies. to the questions at issue, one might get appalled at the dangers that beset the party, if the minority point of view carries. But even a superficial investigation must disclose the cheapness of the tinsel used by the majority in its attempt at camouflage. Unable to prove their charge of “farmer-labor Communism” otherwise, the majority sets up a ridiculous the- ory of “anti-farmer-labor party issue” that slaps everything in the face that the Communist International ever said on the point, and everything that a Marxian analysis could justify. But the weakest points of the major- ity are facts. The nonchalance with which the majority disregard and twist the facts is almost admirable. The other day I pointed out how the minority had raised the question of necessary action on the Pan-Ameri- can Federation conference in Mexicc in April and again in May, but that the majority did nothing, until the eve of the convention. Comrade Browder, chosen by the majority for this task because, I suppose, he is best fitted for it, answers this charge. Disregarding the fact that the mi- nority had raised the issue at least eight months ago, he goes even him- self one better. He insinuates that comrade Lovestone had a nice junket- ng trip at party expense, but that .othing whatever, not even a report, came of it. And, on the eve of the Pan-American conference the’ “poor” najority was forced to do its work without the benefit of knowing the facts as gathered by Comrade Love- stone at party expense. “But,” so concludes Browder, “our job was not so bad after all, was it?” Here are the facts in the matter: On April 14, Comrade Lovestone in- munist Party, but I want to empha- size the fact, that our revolutionary leadership of the working class and the recruiting of class conscious work- ers for our party can be accomplished only thru our energetic participation in the daily struggles of the workers and our ceaseless revolutionary ac- tion, the intensification of which will depend to a large extent upon the economic revolution of the world situ- ation in general and the American in particular, and not miraculously by methods of political camouflage, as proposed by the minority. Immediate Tasks of Our Party. The immediate and most important ask of our party is its reorganization on the basis of shop nuclei. This is our first step towards the Bolsheviza- ion of our party, without which it is bsolutely difficult if not impossible o apply the tactic of the united front, vhich, with all the elaborate programs of the C. E. C., will be a dead letter as long as the present organizationa form lasts. In both theses a grex( lot is being said about the Bolsheviza- tion of the party and many responsible comrades repeat in a parrot-like fash- ion phrases from the thesis of the Fifth Congress, like the “monolithic party hewn out of one block,” etc., etc., while on the other hand they do everything to create separate fractions and groups inside the party. For this disgusting condition the present form of organization of our party is 90 per cent responsible, and this ‘condition will continue, in spite of the exhor- tations of the Fifth Congress against the formation of fractions, as long as the present form of organization, stinking with Second Internationalism, continues to exist. The last convention of our party de- cided to reorganize the party on indus- trial basis, notwithstanding the naive ‘Way in which it proposed to accom- plish it; the Fifth World Congress gave explicit instructions for the re- organization of the party; and the ‘ederations in their conventions have unreservedly supported the decision of the reorganization, Until now, however, all the energies of the C. BE. C. towards that direction have been limited to the publication of a few articles and lately to some spasmodic attempts in the district of Chicago, It is the duty of the C, E. G. to stop this criminal neglect and, as long as they all agree on this, to immediately proceed to the reorgan- vzation of the party on the basis of -he shop nuclei, because it is a tragic Joke to discuss the ways and means of building a mass party, when we neglect to take the very first step to that direction, when the first raid against the party will make it crumble like a house of cards, if it finds it or: ganized in the present form. Speak: ‘ng of the reorganization of the party, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the present discussion on tactics would not have followed the opportunistic way of reasoning, as expressed by the minority of the C. ®. C., if our party was a real Bolshe- vik party based on the ‘shop nuclei, Comrades, demand eo C. BL C. the immediate reorganization of the party, Support the thesis of the majority of the ©. B. C, which propose the only practical plan of revolutionary action according to the decisions of the Fifth World Congress, and at the same time erasing from these with a red pencil the dangerous ition that “we are not opposed to by labor party in principle.” i Fight relentlessly BSituieimireisiiett eM troduced a set of motions relative to the establishment of united action of all the Communist Parties on the American continent on all questions which concern them all alike. This motion was accepted in the form of an instruction to Comrade Lovestone, who was to attend the congress of the Communist Party of Mexico as a frat- ernal delegate. On May 3, after the return of Com- rade Lovestone from Mexico, he sub- mitted an eight-page closely written report. This report'is part of the minutes of the central executive committee. Your insinuations of the squander of party money, of trips to Mexico, Comrade Browder, are belied by the facts. This report of Comrade Lovestone was not only accepted by the central executive committee, but on decision of the central executive committee; it was forwarded to the Communist International. Some of the recommendations of the report of Comrade Lovestone were identical with subsequent decisions adopted by the Communist Interna- tional on the question of co-ordinat- ing the activities of the Communist Parties of both American continents. The report of Lovestone dealt with the political and economic situations, with the Communist Party of Mexico, with the convention of that party, with the question of imperialism, and with the Philippines, It also contain- ed a number of recommendations in the form of instructions to the Trade Union Educational League. For in- stance: That the Trade Union Educational League be instructed to get in touch with the Mexican central executive committee to secure co-operation with the left wing trade union blocks under complete or partial influence of the two parties; That the Trade Union Educational League be instructed to work out a program for a fight against Gompers and Gompersism in the Pan-American federation of labor, especially with a view toward preparing for the Decem- ber conference of this organization. The report further emphasized. the necessity of establishing closer co- operation in anti-imperialist activities, and proposed for this purpose the formation of a Pan-American bureau of all parties,.to be formed in Mexico City om the -occasion-of the . confer- ence of the Gompers outfit. It also contained recommendations for the co-operation of the Young Workers’ Leagues of all the Pan-American countries. The instructions to the Trade Un ion Educational League were accept- ed at a meeting of the executive coun- cil, on May 14, the only objection of the majority being that the Trad: Union Educational League need not be vofod Hecause it would do these things anyhow. su Cod you, Comrade Browder, in the face of thesé facts, throw out the insinuation of junketing trips at the party’s expense without ever giving a report? How can yuu reconcile these facts with your fables contained in your article of December 19? I hope, Comrade Browder, you will not consider it an insult if I remind you that your fight is supposed to save the party, and not the majority. Stick- ing a little closer to the facts might hurt you, altho it would bring you nearer to telling the truth. Comrade Browder excels himself in his defense of the majority’s policy on unemployment. With a skillfulness that can hardly be matched he suc- ceeds in finding a hypothetical ques- tion for his ready-made answers, thus escaping the necessity of giving a straight answer to the real question. We ask: Why was not action on un- employment made part of our indus- trial activities? Browder answers the question: Why was not unemploy- ment action carried out in place o our industrial action? Comrade Brow- der, you may just as well make up your mind right here and now that we do not let you get away with your sleight of hand tricks, While he dexterously insinuates that the minority wanted the party to aban- don all industrial work for unemploy- ment action, Browder seis up a new theory. He points out that you can- not start any unemployment action just because there is unemployment. No! There must first be preparations, an ideological campaign. Altho the industrial crisis has by no means reached a climax, yet un- employment shifted from industry to industry taking on a mass character now here and then there, For a long time unemployment was rampant in the textile mills of the New England states, It had a mass character there. When the minority pointed that out in the central executive committee, the majority said: Unemployment in the textile mills in the New Eng: land states is not caused by a deep depression in the textile industry, but only because textile production has been shifted to the south where cheap- er child and women labor promise higher profits for the textile barons. In other words, our central execu- tive committee majority, instead of action in the situation of the unem- ployed ‘kers in the north, told than: "Porbapa you are hungry, But be content in the knowledge that for every one’ of you that is hungry ‘tere ie some ghild down south that a works and consequently eats—at least a little.” Now our central executive ‘com: mittee majority proclaims thru the mouth, or’ pen, of Comrade Browder that they are ready for action. But somehow unemployment of the textile workers seems to have menshevist tendencies. Now that we are ready for action, there is no more mass de- mand. The textile mills are working again. But they started work in full force with a simultaneous execution of general wage reductions. In. June the central executive committee passed an industrial pro- gram, That program contained: this: Throw into the masses the slogan “No wage reductions and lengthening of hours.” That looks nice in the pro- gram. But what was done? The mat- ter now stands thus: We could not do anything in the case of mass un- employment in the New England text- ile mills because we were not ideo- logically ready for that action. Now that we are ready, that damn elusive unemployment in this particular in- dustry gives us the horse laugh. We could not do anything about the slo- gan of “no wage reductions” because we were not ideologically prepared. And now that we may be prepared,. wage reductions in this particular in- dustry are an established and an ac- cepted fact. That is the alibi of the central executive committee majority. Unemployment has had a mass char acter for a long time among the coal miners of southern Illinois, Any or- ganized action could have been linked up with our election campaign as well as with our campaign against Farrington and Lewis. But we were not prepared ideologically. Why did that menshevist unemployment insiat on existing before we were ready, ‘be- fore the national elections, before the referendum in the miners’ union? I am sure that Browder will answer with some plank in an election leaflet for the national election as well aa for the referendum in the miners’ un- ion, which speaks about unemploy- ment. But the question put to the majority is not what have you said, but what have you done about unem- ployment? And the question, Comrade Browder, is not why did you not drop all your industrial activities to take up unemployment; but why did you not strengthen your industrial actiy- ities by taking up action on the fleld of unemployment? A Communist Catechism More Questions and Answers By MAX BEDACHT & JAY LOVE. STONE, 1 Question—Isn’t it true that a ' farmer-labor party must be based on the mass organizations of the workers and poor farmers? If the masses aren't yelling for a farm- er-labor party, how can the Commun: ists do anything else but oppose a farmer-labor party? Answer—Of course, that’s true. What about it? All the more reason for the central executive committee majority being lamentably wrong when they definitely indicate in their thesis that these mass organizations and the bureaucracy now controlling them are synonymous Are we not, on the basis of the de- veloping economic crisis, heading for a situation in which these masses revolt against their reactionary leader- ship and overthrow the present bureaucracy? In preparation for this, is it not necessary for the Commun- ists, who always must set the pace for the masses and advance the political ideology of these thasses, at this time to’ throw out the slogan of a farmer- labor party which is to be organized on the basis of these organizations of the workers and poor farmers? Is it not our task as Communists to propagate these slogans which, if \pplied, will satisfy a mass need and which if propagated will hasten a re- volt of the masses against their bureaucracy? Because such movement and such slogans as the farmer-labor party can be utilized by the Communists as effective means of precipitating such revolts they, therefore, take on addi- tional value and increased importance to us. These movements must not always somehow or other develop themselves. As long as the economic and political conditions prevailing demand them it is our task to facilitate and hasten their development In this connection it is also inter- esting to note what Comrade Stalin says in his excellent book. “Lenin and Leninism.” page 43: “The theory of spontaneity is the theory of oppor- tunism, the theory of bowing before the spontaneity of a workers’ move- ment, the theory of actual denial of the leading role of the vanguard of the working class.... The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.” 12 Question—Why should Com- * munists want to sit around a conference table, as that famous rank and filer, Joe Manley, would say, with a lot of labor fakere, burea: its and petty bourgeois minded trade union officials? Answer—We will call on Comrade Losovsky to answer all such renowned rank and filers like Manley. We quote from the concluding report made by Losovsky at the Fifth Congress: “We do not sit at the same table with htm (Johaux) ‘for the sake of his beautiful eyes’ but because there are millions of workers who follow him and be- cause there are tens of millions of workers who are neither with us nor with him.” | 3 Question—Is there the slightest * bit of truth in the Foster-Can- non contention that the formation of a farmer-labor party means the con- scious formation of a reformist party? Answer—First of all, let the Bittel- man of June, 1924, answer the Bittel- man of December, 1924, In the June Labor Herald, Bittelman said: “The only test for progress in the American labor movement of today (we hope he wasn’t speaking of one day.or e¢ few months) is INDEPENDENT POLITICAL ACTION, a class political party of workers and poor farmers. He who is indifferent or opposed to independent political action and to the immediate formation of a class farm- er-labor party is a reactionary no matter what language he uses, The only real progressives in the Ameri- can labor movement today are those who favor and work for the formation of such a party.” Of course, such an argument be- trays a lack of knowledge and even greater lack of understanding of the method. When the Foster-Cannon group talks of a labor party it speaks not of a labor party but of the labor party. To this majority the campaign for a farmer-labor party is not a proc: ess contingent upon numerous factors, like the stage of the class struggle, leadership, etc, They cannot see the possibility of a revolutionary working class emerging from this process. The Foster-Cannon group looks updn the whole farmer-labor united front campaign as only incidental to the general attempt of establishing Ja “real” all-inclusive labor party. We maintain that the formation of a farm- ers-labor party is only incidental while the whole campaign is in our opinion the decisive object to be ex- Ploited by the Communists. We want to reap the benefits of the campaign for a farmer-labor united front while the majority of the central executive committee in a thoroly un-Marxian fashion sets the goal of the labor party above everything elst and sacri- ficeg all advantages of the campaign to the achievement of their goal. In. other words, we propose to e! the farmer-labor party movement exploit the process of the development of the political consciousness of the masses for the strengthening of our party and the establishment of our party’s leadership over the masses. We work on the basis of sacrificing the farmer-labor party at any and all times for the immediate advantage of the Workers Party. For the cén- tral executive committee majority on the other hand, the farmer-labor party organization is the sole object and the immediate advantages of such a cam- paign for the party are sacrificed to the goal of the all-embracing labor party in which, according to Foster's statement at St. Paul, the Workers Party will take its rightful position as a hopeless minority. The difference between the Foster- Cannon misconception and our Com- munist conception of this question is this: Foster and Cannon say that the formation of a labor party, the all- inclusive brand of theirs, is the goal of all farmer-labor party movements. They go on to say that if such a movement exists amongst the working masses, then it is the duty of the Communists to assist it, but always with a view of helping to accomplish the task for the formation of a farmer. labor party. They wind up their poor case with a declaration that if there is no movement for the formation of their trade marked all-inclusive farm- er-labor party the Communists should not bother about it. We, the minority of the central ex- ecutive committee, maintain that the American working class, still so largé- ly under the domination of bourgeois ideology and leadership, must develop the idea of separate political interests of their class, Until a large section of the working class in the United States develops this idea the question of Communist leadership over the working class will not be a mass ques- tion. The slogan for a tarmer-labor party best expresses this elementary basic need of political independ of the great masses of the wor) from the capitalists, As Communists, we, the tnt members of the central exe committee, do not seek the tablish: ment of a labor party tive situations and possibili however, the aim of the, the central executive the party should gain the lead of the working masyés during the process of their rap ideolof e kind of a labor party that grow out ws this led by the tions e desires of | Worl Foster and say tle don’t want a farmer-labor party therefore, it is impossible’ to form ¢ It is our Communist understan that the workers need indepe: political action and the slogan campaign for a farmer-labor tend to develop this political pendence, and irrespective of or what kind of a farmer-libor results from this the We : will benefit from such a v4 ie