The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 24, 1924, Page 4

ESS Page Four MINORITY THESIS PROPOSES PENETRATION OF THIRD PARTY By WM. Z. FOSTER. A significant feature of the minor- ity thesis is its failure to acknowledge the mistake of the third party alli- ance. It is characteristic of the mi- nority to be stiffnecked and to as- sume an air of infallibility. They nev- er admit mistakes. They still per- sist in defending their opportunistic maneuvers in the Chicago and St. Paul conventions, in the grab at the | farmers, and in the August thesis. A case in point’is that of Comrade H. | M, Wicks, a prominent leader of the minority, and one who speaks much of Leninist leadership. Just a couple of months ago he, in a wide breach of Communist tactics, principles, and discipline, supported the ultra-reac- | tionary, James Lynch, for president of the International Typographical Union, for which he was censured publicly by the party. Typically, in- stead of confessing his mistakes, he | persists in it and tries to justify it. In this attitude he merely follows the course taken by the minority general- ly regarding party policies. But the minority attitude in failing to acknowledge the third party alli- ance mistake is far more sinister than merely their customary refusal to ad- mit mistakes. Its real significance is that they still mourn for the third party alliance. And, more significant still, is that instead of being correct- ed and brought back to a Communist line by the Comintern decision, they are ignoring it and going still further | ty the right. Now, they are actuall coming to accept the LaFollette mov ment as the expression of the laboi party movement. This conclusion i imescapable after a reading of their thesis and the arguments they pro duce to sustain it. The minority, simply substituting the term “farmer-labor party” for the “LaFollette movement,” practically consider the latter in theory and prac- tice as the mass political movement of the workers and poor farmers and propose to work within it. Stripped of verbiage and understood as it real- ly is, the minority thesis does three things, (1) While presumably laying the theoretical basis for the “class” farmer-labor party, it actually lays the basis for the LaFollette move- ment; (2) While ostensibly indicating the organized expression of the “class” farmer-labor party movement, it is in reality pointing out sections of the LaFollette movement; (3) While proposing a pretended “class” farmer-labor party~ policy, it really outlines a program for penetrating the LaFollette movement. Let us look at these propositions more in detail: 1. Minority Falls to Find Theoretical Basis for “Class” Farmer-Labor Party The minority thesis is supposedly written in defense of the use of the slogan “For a class farmer-labor party” by the Workers Party. Con- sequently if it has any purpose at all it must be to demonstrate the exist- ence of a definite movement for the formation of a farmer-labor party of industrial workers and poor farmers and to analyze the forces producing | party it. With a great fanfare of trumpets the thesis sets out to do this. It speaks of the decay of world capi ism, of use of the government by t big capitalists against the wor! and poor farmers, of the “open shop’ drive, of the big agricultural crisi of the industrial crisis, of the strug- gle of the petty bourgeoisie against the big capitalists, and of the general sharpening of the class struggle. But after all the travail of the mi- nority thesis, does it show the exist- ence of a concrete “class” farmer-la- bor party movement or a tendency in that direction? It does not. It simply brings out the following propositions: 1, That masses of workers, farm- ers, and urban petty bourgeois are deeply discontented from the grow- ing pressure of capitalism. 2. That these masses are breaking away from the republican and demo- cratic parties. 8. That they have formed them- selves into a petty bourgeois move- ment under the leadership of LaFol- lette. 4. That within this movement there are class antagonisms which will eventually disrupt it. But where does the “class” farmer- labor party come in in this analysis? Nowhere. The minority thesis does not show such a movement to be in existence now nor does it even prog- nosticate that it will come into exist- euce at the break-up of the LaFol- lette movement. The thesis, supposed- ly written to justify the use of the “olass” farmer-labor party slogan, does not indicate a movement at the present time to correspond to that slogan, nor does it hold such a move- ment to be inevitable. The thesis says, “It is quite possible that the ac- tual organization of a class farmer- labor party which will establish itself firmly and function over a period of time will not be the line of develop ment.” What Minority Thesis Is. What we have in the minority thesis is this: An analysis which simply in- dicates that there is a LaFollette movement, which analyzes the social content of that movement and the forces that produced it, and which pro- phesies that eventually the proletar- jan elements will break away from the LaFollette movement. Then, without having showed that there is a “ farmer-labor party movement in exist- nee now or in definite prospects for the future, the minority thesis, by a sort of leap-the-gap procedure, hops right to the conclusion that the “class” farmer-labor party slogan stands justified. The minority thesis analysis has a great hole in it. As it stands, it can- not serve as a justification for the use of the “class” farmer-labor party slogan. Something is lacking in it. It cannot show a “class” farmer-labor movement in existence now. Therefore, if the slogan is to be of value, it must demonstrate the inevi- tability of such a “class” farmer-labor party movement. The minority, typi- cally evasive upon all major theoreti- al points, lack the intellectual cour- age to defend the inescapable conclu- }sion from their slogan, that is, that the “class” farmer-labor party is in- evitable. Their thesis now is merely an analysis of the LaFollette move- ment and a prophesy that it will break up, together with an irrelevant and lugged-in advocacy of the “class” farmer-labor party slogan. The thesis does not in any sense lay the theoreti- cal basis for the use of that slogan. 2. Misrepresenting the LaFollette Movement as the “Class” Farmer. Labor Party. Altho the minority thesis fails com- pletely to establish the existence of a definite “class” farmer-labor party movement now, as distinct from the eneral La¥ollette movement, and it lso fails to show that such a move- nent must develop with the breaking way of the masses from the LaFol- stte movement, still, by a sleight-of- and jugglery, it not only seeks to save the impression that one day here will be a mass “class” farmer- abor party, but also that there now »xists an organized movement corre- sponding to the “class” farmer-labor party slogan. The method is insidi- ously simple. In naming organizations and move- ments supposedly giving body to the “class” farmer-labor party idea, the minority thesis adopts a significant shift in terminology. It drops the term “class” farmer-labor, which os- tensibly represents the only form of such party that the minority advo- cates, and it merely refers to the farmer-labor party in general terms. Thus it brings to our attention a mis- cellaneous collection of granger farm- er-labor parties and tries, by raising no issue of their “class” mature, to palm them off upon our party as sec- tions of the “class” farmer-labor party movement. Thus we find cited for our edification the LaFollette farmer- labor parties of Minnesota, Washing- ton, Colorado, South Dakota, and North Dakota. This substitution of the LaFollette movement for the ‘class” farmer-labor party movement runs all thru the minority thesis. It is but one indication of many that the minority, while advocating their mythical “class” farmer-labor party, are prepared to accept in its stead the LaFollette movement, The C. BE. C. majority thesis lays lown the correct principle that in or- der for the Workers Party to profit- ably propagate the “class” farmer- labor party slogan, there must be ass sentiment behind it. It demands that the minority show the existence of such sentiment. The efforts of the minority to do this are the chiet comedy feature of the party “discus- sion. The Fabulous Five. First, their thesis cites the five La- Follette farmer-labor parties above- noted, together with the defunct Cannonsburg party. Then, seeing the glaring inadequacy and incongruity of this showing, the minority began a campaign of discovering flourishing “class” farmer-labor party move- ments in various parts of the country. There was California, for example, where a bunch of renegade ex-mem- bers of the Workers Party and social- ists, all of whom supported LaFol- lette, were trying to revive the social- ist party under the banner of the farmer-labor party. The minority ac- tually tried to call this contemptible Maneuver a mass demand for their “class” farmer-labor party. After that came the farmer-labor resolutions of the moulders, potters, and stone cut- ters, at the A, F. of L. convention, altho these resolutions were adopted by the T. U. E. L., efforts long before the LaFollette movement absorbed the farmer-labor party proper. Next, was Massachusetts, where even when farmer-labor party sentiment was ram- pant in the country, not a real trace of organization could be built up. This place has just experienced a tremen- dous outburst of “class” farmer-labor party sentiment, to hear the minority tell it. The truth is that Organizer Ballam, a loyal supporter of the mi- nority, was just throwing out a little smoke screen for factional purposes. Now comes Comrade Wicks, who dis- covers further blazing mass senti- ment for the ‘class” farmer-labor party in Buffalo. He says that someone told him there is a rumor afloat that it has been said the dead Buffalo labor party will be brought back to life again. Such is the mass support the minority find for their “class” farmer- labor party. Only one minority strong- hold has failed to “deliver,” Phila- delphia, What's the matter with Com- rade Jakira? We breathlessly await "hthe manifestation of a great “class” T HE DAILY WORKER Discussion of Our Party’s Imm farmer-labor vailliwick. Tn their citing of mass sentiment for their “class” farmer-labor party slo- gan, the only things tangible are the granger farmer-labor parties, sections of the LaFollette movement. They are not “class” parties at ali. They are LaFollette parties. But this gives the minority no great difficulty. They are prepared to accept these parties and to work within them. The whole course of their thesis and supplement- ary arguments proves this, 3. A “Class” Farmer-Labor Party Policy Which Means Working With the LaFollette Movement. In reality the thesis of the minority proposes a policy of working within the LaFollette movement, or “third party,” an organization with which the Comintern prohibited Communists from even making an alliance. This is evident from an analysis of the mi- nority “policy.” Three general lines of action are open to the advocates of the “class” farmer-labor party slogan. These are: 1, They can remain within the realms of propaganda and simply advocate the principle of a “class” farmer-labor party. 2. They can proceed to organize such sentiment as is to be found for their slogan into a_ definite “class” farmerlabor party. 3. They can work within the La- Follette movement for the realiza- tion of their “class” farmer-labor party. The first of these is the policy of Comrade Brahdy and his group, the second is the old Pepper-federated policy, and the third is that of the socialist party. All three are unten- able. The minority do not dare to de- clare openly for any one of the three. If they stood for the first one, they would be driven out of court at once, because in the very nature of things such a slogan as the “class” farmer- labor party demands a definite organ- izational policy. If they stood for the second policy they would fare no better, because the Workers Party has had its stomach full of federated par- ties. And if they stood for the third, frankly, they would also be defeated, for obvious reasons. It is a hard situ- ation. So the minority meet it by ad- vocating all.three policies simultane- ously and in utter confusion. In this way they hope to avoid the issue of a definite policy. The practical working out of their confused proposals, how- ever, would amount in substance to putting into effect the third policy, that of working within the LaFollette movement. The Heart of the Minority Thesis. The minority thesis starts out with a great blare of trumpets to support (1). policy, that is of simply propaganda of the “class” farmer-la- bor party slogan. They enlarge upon its value as a propaganda instrument and minimize the organizational side. Says the thesis, “Our immediate cam- paign must, be one of agitation. Whether the left class elements will be eventually organized into a farmer- labor party fighting the class battles of workers and farmers, is not the es- sential question at present.” And again, “The slogan, ‘For a class farm- er-labor party’ remains our most ef- fective means of agitation for politi- cal action on a class basis by the workers and poorer farmers,” Having thus soft-soaped the ele- ments in the party who realize the futility of a campaign to organize the “class” farmer-labor party, the mi- nority thesis, by a typical example of its not letting the right hand know what the left hand doeth, plunges headlong into an immediate campaign of organization around its beloved and belabored slogan of a “class” farmer- labor party. This time is discovers a great love for (3) policy and un- blushingly advocates permeation of the C. P. P. A, the heart of the La Follette third party movement.*| - But upon this dangerous ground of penetration of the verboten third party, the minority thesis does not rest long. It hastily takes refuge in (2) policy, the famous August-thesis- Pepper-federated policy. We are told that participation in the third party is to be strictly limited in scope and time. Our dose of poison is to be small, The thesis promises us a ple- thora of splits from the C. P. P. A. and the inauguration of a whole series of fake federateds all over the coun- try. The minority thesis aims to please. In its grab-bag it has a little present for every group, except the one against the usage of the slogan at all, the majority group. It pleases those who are for the slogan for pro- paganda purposes only, those who foresee the glory of a new federated or, perchance, a flock of them, and those, who are a numerous group of minority followers, who stand square- ly for participation in the LaFollette third party. What Will Minority Do? Now the question arises, which of these three general lines of policy, (1), (2), or (3), would the minority actually follow if the party were so unwise and unfortunate as to support their thesis? Let us consider each phase: As for (1) policy, the mino1 ity would, of course, use the “clas; farmer-labor party slogan for propa- ganda purposes. But, this propagan- da would have to be followed up by a definite organizational program. That much is absolutely certain, Ever the minority grudgingly admit it Therefore, the attempt to create the impression that the slogan has © sreat value simply for propaganda party outburst in his MAJORITY RETREATS RIGHT INTO ARMS OF FARMER-LABOR PARTY By JULIUS CODKIND. ‘AKING the position that there is no present mass movement toward a farmer-labor party the majority pro- claim that we should withdraw from this field and apply the united front LABOR PARTY, which he himself has been compelled to accept in the logical development of his own speech. The General Labor Congress and the Farmer-Labor Party. Another avenue that the majority ediate Tasks eat NNN OY SELES AEDT ERA parliamentary field, so why should we bother with it, wails the majority. Certainly our majority, howling “op portunism” and “farmer-laborism” at the minority is not opportunist or “farmer-laborist.” Of course, it was opportunism and farmer-laborism to prevent the majority from making the Workers Party look foolish by defeat- ing their desire to maintain their “united fronts” with the Fitzpatricks at all costs, and from going into a / Wednesday, December 24, 1924 he arguments and thesis of the ma- ority, must be that the only use of uch a party is to breed opportunism and farmer-laborism in our own ranks, It is becoming evident that in the United States, a possible labor patry must find its leadership in the Com- munist Party, To the minority this appears to be most welcome, but the majority seems to fear that the two class parties will become all mixed up and the Workers Party lost in the tactic in other avenues, as the oppor- tunity arises, Where are these other avenues to lead us? The majority holds forth, as the leading united front tactic of today, the establishment of unemployed councils in which the Workers Party should take the leadership, Very well, let us proceed to form these councils. We are in the midst of our unem- Ployed agitation. Comrade X, of the majority, is addressing a vast mass of five hundred unemployed workers. We assume for the sake of charity that in this unmixed crowd of unem- ployed there are no Communists or suggests as a good way to establish a united front,is,to immediately be- gin to popularize the idea of a Labor Congress to prepare the minds of the workers for the coming tasks.” Of course, one might suggest to the majority that the sentiment for such a labor congress does not exist, and according to their own law on the labor party they contradict them- selves when they propose to work for something for which no sentiment exists. It is well to remember that they criticize their own expenditures for the farmer-labor party for which so much actual mass sentiment did exist when the Workers Party took the field. How much more will it shuffle. Even such an absurdity cannot pre- vent the determination of Communists to move toward the formation of a labor party to be dominated and led by the Communist Party of America, openly, fearlessly, determinedly to the goal of Soviets and the, dictatorship of the proletariat. A Communist Catechism More Questions and Answers eels, third party convention to nominate LaFollette for president. Of what use is a labor party that can serve only as a rallying point for such organized labor bodies as are ready to break their alliance with the petty bourgeoisie, but are not yet pre- pared to enter the Communist Party? Our naswer to this question, based on cost to build up a movement for a labor congress to prepare the minds of the workers for the coming tasks? Let us remember—to build up a move- ment for a congress that holds out no objective to the workers outside of the proposition that the Workers Party is to prepare their minds. sympathizers. He speaks to them of the necessity of forming councils of unemployed to fight for “Work or Wages.” He proves that every worker is entitled to a job. He holds them spellbound. They stand con- vinced that it ought to be, They accept his leadership, but within him By MAX BEDACHT & JAY LOVE. STONE. 1 Question—Who must be the * leaders of all united front cam- Answer—The Communists, of course. In this connection it is neces- ‘#2 Paigns? sary to state that the Ruthenberg- party as the basis of our movement.’ Well comrades, this doesn’t look much as if the C. I. has endorsed the posi- tion of Cannon-Bittelman-Foster{ Does it? Of course, not. eee I] Question—How many contradio * tions are there in the Foster Cannon thesis? he knows that he has yet two tasks to perform, First, he must tell them how! Second, he must win them te the Workers Party. If he can approach his average American crowd, even of unemployed, and convince them only thru the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, will they gain their objective, the writer stands convinced that the majority is correct in aban- doning the slogan of the farmer-labor party and the effort toward its at- tainment. At one stroke, Comrade X has performed his double task, and by repeating his success thruout the country before the great masses of workers he has prepared their minds for the revolution and there is no need for the farmer-labor party. However, Comrade X of the major- ity will probably approach his task by explaining that only when the workers will control the government will they be able to impose on the bosses the “Work or Wages” proposi tion. He will.explain that to accom- plish this, the workers must organize their own class party and then like a good Communist, he will judge rightly that this is as far as he can go now without losing the confidence of his unemployed workers. However, he is still under the nec- essity of gaining and holding prestige, not only for himself but for the Work- ‘ers Party, so he will go on to describe fully the position of the Communists, emphasizing his own belief that the Communist determination to establish Soviets is the correct and only solu- tion, but being careful to explain all the time nevertheless, that he and the party join loyally in the effort of the workers to attain government power themselves deem best. Now, what has Comrade X of the Let us assume, however, that the majority has gained its point. The victory has been won in the party. The farmer-labor party has been cast aside. All obstacles have been over- come; a labor congress,is in session. Can the majority there offer the program of the Communist Party, i. e,, the Workers Party, for accept- ance, in line with its own policy, which reads as follows: “A. fundamental principle of the united front tactics is that a Commun- ist Party must absorb into its own ranks every section and group of the working class that accepts in the struggle the policies and slogans of the Communist Party.” Will the majority dare to dismiss this congress without affecting a per- manent form of organization? No, they won’t dare. They won’t even dream of such-an absurdity. They will provide a permanent form of or- ganization. What will that organiza- tion be? ‘We must remember, if the form of organization is anything less than the Communist Party, that it becomes a violation of the thesis of the majority. Let us be lenient, however. Let us grope with the majority for a means to avoid the formation of the labor party, for this seems to be their real objective Very well. Let them pro- pose some form of organization whose character will be ‘such as to make un- necessary for the organization to enter the parliamentary field, i. e., the elections, for if it enters the par- liamentarian field it becomes a politi- cal party of labor which must stand in conflict or in alliance with tne Workers Party Perhaps the majority proposes a new I. W. W. You never can tell! The majority is most solicitous of the welfare of the minority. It wants Pepper group has had considerable difficulty in impressing this elemen- tary Communist truth upon many of the comrades high in the councils of the present majority of the central ex- ecutive committee. We cite the following from a report on the united front farmer-labor campaign in the city of Chicago made by Comrade Swabeck, district organizer, on June 10, 1923, to the central executive committee. “We had decided and did pursue the method of as much as possible following the lead of the national officers of the farmer-labor party and mainly stressed the necessity of unity.” The comrades of the present minor- ity of the c~~tral executive committee fought against this anti-Communist concept of the united front tactics and will continue to do so. aad che 1 Question—Where does the Fos- * ter-Cannon group get the notion that because of the fact that Hiliquit and some other socialist party leaders may attempt to use the farmer-labor party slogan, therefore, this slogan becomes useless for the Communist Answer—This argument is the trade mark of the centrist: The centrist has so little confidence in his own principles and tactics that when he meets apparently the same principles and tactics from some enemy he does not dare to put forth his own for fear that the masses wouldn’t know the difference. ] Question—Since the Foster. * Cannon group is bitterly op- posed to submitting the question im- mediately to the C. I. where does it get the nerve to fool the membership that the C. |. has as good as endorsed Answer—Altogether too many. In fact the whole thesis is a contradic tion. For instance, they accuse the Marxian group of the party, the founders of the Communist move- ment in America, who were members of the C. I. at a time when many ot those who are now’ yelling loudest “liquidate” were not at all connected with the Communist movement, ot taking political action in the narrow sense of parliametary action. The Lord have mercy on these new sav- ior of our movement! The whole Bittelman thesis is nothing but one overwhelming proof that whenever the majority of the C. E. C. speaks of political action it has in mind only one form of political action—parlia- mentary action. The C. E. C. mator ity cannot imagine that a farmer-la. bor party can have any other purpose or function than that of serving as an election machine. They cannot imagine that even a farmer-labor party (in which the Communists are the dynamic force of course) can be made a school for the working masses in which to learn and to apply the many forms of political action, a School to teach that political, action will only then become effective when the workers abandon the idea of be- ing saved by proxy thru elected rep- resentatives and assume the idea that the workers must take over the job of emancipating themselves thru their own action, by mass political action. 18. Question—Why does the Fos * ter-Cannon group always insist on befuddling the minds of the mem. bership by insisting that the test of the correctness of their proposed change of policy lies in the correct- ness of the entrance of the Workers Party into the election campaign? He has gone as far as he could in urging a Communist program. He has explained the Communist position thoroly, without creating prejudice. He has implanted in the minds of the listeners a doubt of their own remedy, and left a slight but subconscious idea that if this fails they can still try the Communist tactic. Very good! Comrade X of the ma- jority has done well as anyone could have expe of him. Never- theless, Comrade X (in company with Comrade Y of the minority, who dis- likes the task fully as much as Com- rade X) will haye to march along on the road chosen by the very workers who have been made class conscious by his own unemployment agitation, until they get ready to try his Com- munist tactic. And that road fs the who have but found the party within the last couple of years as a result of the party’s united front tactics, It wants to save them from the clutch of the farmer-labor party, so it de- clares war on the farmer-labor party for their sake. Pepper, Ruthenberg, Lovestone, Bedacht, Gitlow, must be saved by Foster. Dunne and Browder. In New York also, the old guard minorityites are busily being saved, by newcomers, The Workers Party seems to have disappointed our newer members. It held forth the idea of a vast labor party. Now it is evident that a labor party can never be proportionately as large as the labor party of Great Britaain, What is more bitter still, is that the labor party here cannot hope thru those methods that the workers Who Are the Opportunists? majority done? to save all these young Communists to become a powerful factor on the purposes is vain and futile. Whether they wanted to or not, the minority these worthless little “class” farmer- labor parties, liquidators and rivals of its stand already? What is the mean- ing of the C. E. C. majority spokes: men talking themselves blue in the face repeating the following section from the last advice from the C. I. on our farmerlabor campaign? “In case of a split at the June 17 conven: tion the question of whether or not the Workers Party shall act alto- gether independently in its own name in the election campaign or whether it shall launch a campaign under the name of the F. L. P. will depend largely upon whether it (the Work- ers Party) is successful in the split and will depend on how far it’ main. tains contact’ with the working masses at the June 17 convention”? Answer—The declaration ofthe C I. applies only to and was given only for the consideration of a method of conducting a specific election cam paign at hand and was not put for ward in any way at all and does not at all pretend to deal with the ques: tion of the farmer-labor party as an Why does this basically opportunist group do so much yelling in its the- sis about the minority not eulogizing the decision of the C. E: C. to enter the campaign as the Workers Party alone? Answer—The minority of the C. EB. ©. refuses to make a virtue out of necessity simply because a set of cir- cumstances which we were unable to control developed and compelled us, at the last moment, to abandon the farmer-labor united front-as a basia for the election campaign. There is no reason whatever to pretend to theorize now that this abandonment represents an unshakable dogma. Zinoviev recently wrote to the Czecho- Slovakian Communists that: “We are all patriots of our own party. That is perfectly correct. But the best party patriotism is to see the weak side of one’s own movement.” i It is on this basis that the Marxian group of the party is of the opinion would be driven to take organization- al steps to put their slogan into ef- fect. The question is merely which of the (2) or (3) policies they would ap- ply in seeking the inescapable organ- ization. What an alternative for the party to contemplate! We would have the choice of either forming a new federated or of working within the third party! Now, which course would the minority take? The answer is not too difficult. For a time, no doubt, while “sectarian” objections to penetration of the third party remain- ed strong, the (2) policy would be at least partially applied. We would be confronted with numerous splits in the C. P. P. A. and musterings of Communist sympathizers into skele- ton parties, There would grow up probably a thick underbrush of little federateds, But this would be only a temporary stage, ‘These little federateds would be a burden upon our party's lorn orphans, they would be at once a pity and an e: A policy of birth control would be inevitable, rhe situation would be intolerable to inietie ie had oot sentence ollowing out. the! o accept i movement, vould soon probaly to put an ond to the ization drives | the Workers Party. While not aban- doning in theory their “class” farmer- labor party, the farmer-labor Commun- ists would postpone its formation in- definitely. The policy of penetrating the third party, which they now pro- pose as a temporary expedient, would become the settled farmer-labor pro- gram of the Workers Party. The policy of the minority leads straight to penetration of the LaFol- lette third party. Their thesis analys- is develops, not the “class” farmer- labor party movement, but the LaFol- lette movement. The organizations they seek to palm off as “class” farm- er-labor parties are in reality only sections of the LaFollette movement. Their pretended “class” farmer-labor party policy leads directly to a liquida- tion-opportunistic policy of penetrat- ing the LaFollette third party. Such a “policy” as the minority proposes must not be adopted. It would poison our young and struggling Workere Party with the worst forms of oppor tunism. In its latest decision the Com- intern emphatically repudiated every suggestion of penetrating the third party movement as highly injurious to the integrity and development o} our own party, We must support this decision, we must check farmer-labo: opportunism once and for all by over defeating the minority that the outstanding feature of the first election campaign of the W. P. is the fact that it was nothing but an élection campaign in the’ narrowest sense. The Central Executive Com- mittee made no effort to conduct a political campaign combining united” front political actions, such as unenti- ployment campaign, recognition of Soviet Russia, ete., with the election campaign in order to trans: issue and slogan, Commenting on the American ques: tion at the meeting of the commission in the presidium of the E. C. of the C. I. on May 20, 1924 Zinoviev ‘said: “I believe that if we study everything we. will say that in the year 1924 things are not so elementary that we can simply go along with any move- ment that is against the trusts and we cannot propagate the idea of an independent labor party, WE MUST DARE TO PUT FORTH THIS IDBA AND IT MUST BE _ REALIZED. NAMELY, A SEPARATE LABOR PARTY. IT IS OUR MAIN DUTY TO SEE THIS IN MOTION, IN AM- ERICA THERE IS A DANG OF OUR FALLING INTO DE LEONISM. THAT WE MUST STATE QUITE OPENLY . erican plan. In France it was pos- We are swamped again. ony to Fee the yj '| J There is just a toad of | aoe deka eee na hak | felling up In our’ efs sad our | must drive this party forward bate le pia Hi jet it done. build If any i pg teensy * mat Bat pol i Our) T haves day, an hour or a minute We must not regret that we to spare, COME: ON OVERS BFL We are GIVE US A HAND! \