The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 30, 1924, Page 4

Page Four Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks / As to the “Marxian Trunk” of the Party —_—_ \.cRWILLIAM Z. Foster. ./ F there is one thing in this discus sion more than another that gives Me a gentle pain it is the high and lofty air of intellectual superiority as sumed by the leading comrades of the minority. This is a hangover from the reign of Comrade Pepper. At that time it was quite the mode for the “intellectuals” of the minority to ridicule with disdain the efforts of the merely proletarian members of the C. B. C., as expressed by the various theses, statements, etc., which the) Submitted. This practice, which was Ul-fated for those following it, we thought had passed. But the party discussion shows that it is still the fashion with the minority leaders. In mow many articles do we find this anti-Communist attitude perme- ating their arguments. With what as- surance they brag of being the only bonafide Communists in the party that they are the Marxian trunk of our organization. That is the burden of their whole song. Now, nauseating though such an attitude may be, it has at least one advantage for the comrades of the minority to praise themselves so highly as Marxists. If they did not tell us of this Marxism it could not be known otherwise. Cer. tainly no one would discover much Marxism in their advocacy of @ “class” farmer-labor party to “fight the battles of the working class.” The fact is not a single one of the minority leaders, despite their cease less bragging. has ever written any thing which would from a Marxian point of view attract a moments no tice outside of our party. This is true also of the most outstanding “Marx ist” among them, Comrade Wicks, who but a few weeks ago was urging the left wing printers to vote for the Gomperite, James Lynch. Now what is there to this endless claim of the minority, who never cease blowing of their Marxism, that they are the only element fit to direct the policies of the Workers Party? Fortunately we have a little some- thing to go on in this respect. This question, too, has been passed upon by the Comintern. It was when the last delegation was in Moscow to get a de cision upon the moot question of the “third party alliance.” It came about this way: Comrade Pepper, on behali of the minority, carried on a vicious campaign of misrepresentation to dis- credit the present C. E. C. as a lot »i syndicalists and opportunists. In this campaign he was militantly, if not very effectively, assisted by other members of the minority who sent to Moscow the most bitter series of let- ters it has ever been my unhappy lot to encounter in a revolutionary organ- ization. The writers not only gave the most glowing accounts of their own revolutionary activities, but they assailed the majority from every point in the compass, and from many that the compas never heard of. After this big barrage, which war hoped would smash the majority’s poor defenses to the ground, Comrade Pepper drew up his army in full array and made a frontal attack upon the present C. BH. C. by demanding that the Comintern removes it from power. Although so badly discredited by the convention, he demanded that the party be turned over to the tende) mercies of the minority. He asked control of the DAILY WORKER, and other measures calculated to place the ninority fully in control of the party. Incidentally, as a sort of good meas ure, he demanded that our unemploy ment and other policies be reversed Now here was the issue. squarely placed. The question of the fitness of the two groups was fairly in ques- tion. And the Communist Interna- tional was to judge. On the one side as our minority comrades would have it, there was the splendid “Marxian trunk” of the party (which was inci: dentally the author of the August thesis, the third party alliance and every other opportunistic move for the past three years) and on the other side, the present C, BE. C. of “syndi- ecalists” and “opportunists” and “non- Marxists.” The fate of the party was at stake. If the party. were turned over to the minority, all would be roses and progress; but if it were turned over to the majority, every- thing would be lost. And what was the Comintern’s de- cision? How did it choose between the two groups? We all know that the C. I. is a real international and that it does not hesitate to re-organ ize a central executive committee in any country if such action is neces- sary in order to put the party involved back into Bolshevik control, Now ii the claims of the minority were true the duty of the Comintern would have been clear, and we know it woul¢ have performed that duty relentlessly by removing the present C, BH. C. from power. But the Comintern refused to do this. Somehow it fafled to get the point that the minority were the only Communist, Marxian branch in our party. Possibly it may have thought that there were just as good Communists and Marxists among the majority. But at any rate, and this {+ the big thing, the Comintern rejected completely the demands of Pepper giving the minority a sharp censure incidentally. It not only maintained the C. E. C. in power, but it expressed confidence in the present majority This expression of confidence was later reiterated by Comrade Zinoviev at the Fifth Congress. Let the decis- ion of the Comintern on their demand for control of the C. BE. C. be the ans- wer to the eternal bragging of the minority of their Communist superior. ity. No, the Comintern did not reject all of the minority’s demands. There was one that it granted, and in this we joined; viz., that the Pepper-Ruthen- berg and Cannon-Foster groups b: amalgamated. In making this demand the minority showed the hypocrisy 0’ their whole case. If the majority were such non-Communists and sydi calists as the minority said they were why did the latter want to amalge mate within them and thus possibl; poison their own purity? May be, it the goodness of their hearts, they were willing to adopt us poor orphans. But if this was their benevolent in tention the Comintern gave no encour- agement to their gentle aspirations. It seemed to think the majority quite capable of sitting up and taking nour. ishment. The minority have learne¢ this also during the past year. They have learned that the proletarians of the majority can at the very least hold their own with the “intellec tuals” of the minority, and can punc- that the minority be given four addi |ture their portunism quite effec- tional members on the C. E. C., full | tively. RUTHENBERG’S “FARMER-LABOR AUDIT” By JOSEPH MANLEY. OMRADE RUTHENBERG, in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 9, seeks to prove to our membership that I am a common liar by his publication of an alleged audit of farmer-labor expenses, supposedly, compiled with the due care and accuracy that befits his office of executive secretary of our party. Tt may come as a shock and a sur- prise to our membership to find Com- rade Ruthenberg using his high office to misrepresent facts and figures with the end in view of destroying a politi- cal adversary, To substantiate this grave charge I will analyze but a few of the items of the alleged audit pub- Mshed by him as an answer to my original estimate. ysis I am at a distinct disadvantage, | | I am living “on the road” at present In making my anal- in the anthracite region. I can call | no battling bookkeeper or adding ma- chine to my assistance. The first fault 1 find with the “audit” of Comrade Ruthenberg is that, as usual with his estimates—as I will on another occasion point out—-no one but himself can understand it and it does not tell the story. My estimate, on the contrary, took first the cost of operating the federated with which I was thoroly familiar, and the other items with which 1 was most closely associated and of which I had inti- mate knowledge. Comrade Ruthenberg accepts my es- mate on the first item—the federated. He knows my figure of $7,000 is a conservative one, Now let me ask Comrade Ruthen- berg if his figure of $6,532.41 —the alleged total labor party campaign expense for 1924—includes: ' (1) The subsidy given the Minnesota | Workers Party to help organize the _ farmer-labor federation; (2) The sums. ' advanced to the St. Paul committee Co ¥ t to organize the St. Paul convention; (3) The expenses of Comrade Wicks and the several organizers while. en- gaged in the farmer-labor party cam- paign work; (4) The sums we spent on getting farmer-labor leaders (sev- eral of whom double-crossed us and the farmer-labor party. the darling of their hearts) to the several confer- ences held in St. Paul and elsewhere; (5) The expenses of yourself, Comrade Foster and others on the various trips to confer with Mahoney and others; (6) The expenses of other central executive committee members while on farmer-labor work and the whole central executive committee tc the St. Paul convention; (7) The sums advanced to the various districts to help finance delegates; (8) The advance hall rent at St, Paul and all the other incidentals while in St Paul in connection with the actual con- vention. None of the above items, and some not mentioned, are included in my estimate of the cost of operating the federated. Therefore, they must be included in any real audit of the total farmerlabor party expense. They cannot be included under the head of “national farmer-labor party expense, $990.65.” Because I remember being the agent at the March St. Paul con- ference thru which the Workers Party pledged $500 to the St. Paul committee and | remember Comrade Ruthenberg telling me shortly. after- wards that he had to send another $500. Neither of these items were entered in the books:of the federated and, therefore, must be either in the item of $6,532.41 or are entered in the Workers Party books under some other head that does not show up in the farmer-labor party “audit.” One a item in the alleged “audit”. excites. my suspicion that wave of the hand and smiling counte- nance wishes to hang something on me, The item—Farmer-Labor Voice deficit, $1,905.39: The Farmer-Labor Voice—of which I was editor and which by the way taught me more about the extremes of opportunism to which I was being driven than any other one thing—had no real income at all. It was financed entirely by the Workers Party. and its mission was to peddle farmerlabor damnfoolish- ness to elements that in reality were LaFollette bucolics, Its circulation ran down from 20,000 in its first issues to less than 10,000 in its closing issues. In all, 20 issues were publish- ed. Comrade Ruthenberg must prove it to me that the cost of printing, mailing and the circular letters to boost circulation was as low as he claims. Comrade Ruthenberg has completely left out of his “audit,” a reckoning of the expense to our district organiza- tions of participating in the farmer- labor party campaign. All this is done with a purpose, first, to make me appear a damnfool—tho when I was a member of the Pepper faction he thought me sensible enough to nomi- nate me twice to be the secretary of two of his pet farmer-labor parties— and, second, to minimize the expense to the Workers Party of that which he was such a devout champion—the farmer-labor party. Until Comrade Ruthenberg pub- lishes a complete itemized statement covering all the items above enumer- ated and showing that the total to the Workers Party national and district for its participation in the farmer-labor party campaign was actually the sum he claims, namely: $19.491.60, I will continue to stand jby my original esti- mate, which I maintain is conserva- tive namely: $50,000. No sleight of hand audits; no insult- ing remarks from Comrade Ruthen- berg or some of his dear followers will bluff me off. So Comrade Ruthenberg |. pray let me advise you to get your bat-tling bookkeeper and adding ma- chines busy. The dead hand of the farmer-labor party has lost its grip. Down with its corpse! Up with the Workers (Communist) Party! Laure Ce a inary as THE DAILY WORKER HOW BITTELMAN PLAINLY LIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HUNGARIAN COMMUNIST CONVENTION By BEN GITLOW. N the wilderness of New York a sage was found in all his naked inno- cence by the present majority of the Cc. BE. C. Because he became a mem ber of the infallible flock he was ele- vated by Comrade Cannon with the approval of Comrade Foster to the leading position in the party, thereby becoming the grand apostle of Com- munism in the country. So it came to pass that he left New York for Chi- cago. In Chicago where the stench of the stockyards nauseates he raised his sinewy arm felling with one fierce blow the giant Pepper to the ground. And behold, ye unsophisticated mem- bers of the Workers Party, the giant is no more. Comrade Bittelman, shy and bashful like a maiden that knows better, is now the political secretary of the Workers Party of America. Wearing the mantle of the great and assuming the position of the po- litical oracle among the Communists in America it has become the painful duty of Comrade Bittelman to supply the magic words, both spoken and written, that in their very utterance destroy all opposition, particularly that of the minority. We find this firebrand speaking before the conven- tion of the Hungarian section for over two and a half hours on behalf of the majority. After having spoken thousands of words that would have scuttled a pirate ship, leave alone the minority, he was surprised to learn at the end of it all that the delegates wére not overcome but soberly by 2 vote of 23 to 1 supported the minority Bittelman therefore in his anger do- liberately forgets what actually took place at the convention. The conven: tion was very orderly. It deliberated fglly on all matters before it. Com- rade Bittelman was given every op- portunity to present his viewpoint. Comrade Bittelman in his article ad- mits that the discussion on the major- ity and minority lasted over four hours. That alone is sufficient proof that every phase of the question was considered. Comrade Bittelman comes to the following conclusion because the dele. REALISTIC SHREDS By BUD REYNOLDS, ‘HE issue raised in the present party discussion, is the possibility for good or ill to the cause of Com- munism, in the party's reviving the slogan, “For a farmer-labor party.” The minority have, by the import- ance they attach to it, practically rais- ed this issue to the status of a Com- munist principle. Reading some of their contributions to the discussion, one would gather that the farmer- labor party was to Communism what municipal ownership was to the old S. P., a purgatory in which the metal of the workers was to be tempered to a revolutionary hardness. And as the minority leadership had its roots deep in the 8. P., the possibility of S. P. “political action” revised, creep- ing into the party, is not too remote to be considered. I understand the F. L. P. slogan to be but a phase of the united front tactic. If we define the meaning and purpose of the unit- ed front tactic, and examine it in this light, testing how it meets the re- quirements as compared to other phases of the united front tactic, we will be getting down to reality. If we find only “realistic shreds,” let us not let Comrade Lovestone scare us from a calm consideration of them by an inept quotation from Lenin. The united front tactic has ford purpose the attracting of workers who do not at present follow our leader- ship, but who stand near to us or whe may be brought into action in concert with us, to achieve a common aim; with the end in view of immediately getting them into action and ultimate- ly winning them to our party. This lefinition is exact enough to serve the purposes of this discussion. Let 18 examine our experiences in De- troit. It is to be understood that Detroit is an .extremely industrialized city, that its trade union movement has been known for years as being very progressive (comparatively) and that Detroit has for years been a hot-bed of radicalism. These factors favored us. Our first united front. was for Rus- sian relief. In this, we secured the support of the Detroit Federation of Labor and many local unions. Our work extending over a year was high- ly successful. We made many con- tacts, gained many members and sup- porters, and were in a_ greatly strengthened position at the end o the action. It was a success.” Our next drive was for amalgama- tion, In this we acted in the local unions to get resolutions endorsing same. We succeeded in getting the Detroit Federation of Labor favorably on record. Thru the Detroit delegation to the Michigan Federation Conven- tion, we succeeded in its adoption there. (At this point, I can hear the minority shout for action instead of resolutions.) I may say that much good propaganda was done in point- {ng out the present organizational weakness of the unions, the jurisdic Comrade Ruthenborg with his uaial! ional dlaputos which divide the cratts 4 into warring: groyps:. amg the stumbl- tug block to progress presented by the reactionary officialdom in the various craft divisions; weakness which would be modified or eliminated by amalgamation. More could have been accomplished, had more of the minor- ity leaders and their federation fol- lowers been looking for action then. Our next major problem was that of defending Communists arrested in an illegal convention with all the yel- low pack of the kept press in full cry. That we could organize a suc- cessful united front on this issue, rais- ing money and getting the Michigan Federation of Labor to condemn the law, the arrests and the prosecution, investigate the matter and bring in a report of much value to the defense in raising money and molding public sentiment, is an indication that a fairly healthy sentiment prevailed as a result of our party’s activities. This united front was a success. We strengthened our position. Now comes the farmer-labor phase of the united front, which we are told by the minority is to be the “seven league boots” of Communism. While the federation supporters of the mi- nority were conducting their singing societies, dramatic clubs, and real es- tate ventures, not yet realizing that the farmer-labor party slogan was a ilar prelude to Communism, the Detroit supporters of the majority thesis carried on a militant campaign for a farmer-labor party. The report of the July convention to the Detroit Federation of Labor cost us our first serious defeat. We aceepted defeat with a determination to come back stronger to the next trial of strength, believing that the fault lay with us instead of the slogan. When the June 17 issue came up, the Detroit Federation of Labor tacit- ly refused to consider it. We called our own conference. Those unions wr controlled and a few others sent dele gates, The action was condemned b) the Detroit Federation of Labor, wit! tolling effect upon some of our aMlic tions and some of our party members The convention was held, with wha: results we are all familiar. It was never possible to get the delegates to- gether again, except our. own party members. The decision of the party to run our own candidates pulled us out of a hole that had become untenable, lo- cally as it had become nationally. A’ the end of this “united front” action, and particularly on this farmer-labor issue, the party stood stripped of all its former supporters. At the end of the action, we stood in a weakened position. The result was a waited front of our opponents, We need not seriously regret this isolation. It has clearly shown us the nature of our struggle. It has shown us how scant are the forces now favoring a class party,. Our ex- perience has been syiMleient to dispel the illusion that class elements are gates by a vote of 23 to 1 supported the minority. He is however afraid to make a definite charge so he frames it in the vague terms that it seems as if, Says Bittelman, “It seems as if the farmer-labor party idea had be- come an obsession with the com- rades who cannot imagine the fur- ther development of our movement without this slogan.” Please, Comrade Bittelman, ' don’t tell us that it seemed so. What ac tually did the delegates say? Many delegates spoke and pointed out why it was necessary to continue the use of the farmer-labor party slogan. Why don’t you present quotations from their arguments to prove what seemed to you was actually so? The truth of the matter is that Comrade Bittel- man was either asleep while the dis- cussion was on or that from the argu- ments presented the above conclusion can not logically be drawn. A mere assertion, Comrade Bittelman, is no proof. Then Comrade Bittelman with his political sagacity quotes from the C. I and comes to another conclusion. This time the political secretary of our party gets an impression. Afte: all we are living in an impressionistic age. Thus states Comrade Bittelman: “The impression forced upon me by the debate at the Hungarian conven- tion was that at least some sections of our party are becoming contami- nated with (petty bourgeois pacifist) illusions. That this is a menace to our party every one will admit.” Comrade Bittelman, concretely, what did the Hungarian section and its con- vention do to warrant such a serious charge?’ Why does not Comrade Bit- telman, the political secretary of the party, bring definite motions before the C. E. C. to eradicate the danger- ous petty bourgeois pacifist tendencies manifested at the Hungarian conven- tion? To fail to do so in the face of such a serious menace to our party is to neglest one’s Bolshevik duty to our party. For a ©, B. C. member who is aware of such a dangerous tend- ency within our party and not to ac- tively combate it is a crime. But Bittelman and the majority of the C. E. C. will not take action against the Hungarian section because the insinu. ations of Comrade Bittelman contain not one iota of truth. The damaging insinuating charges that Comrade Bittelman so carelessly indulges in should be severely condemned. The Hungarian convention and the activities of the section conclusively prove the opposite of what Comrade Bittelman contends. The report of its executive committee and the resolu- tion passed proves that the Hungar- ian section is Bolshevik, an active section of the party and a whole hearted and loyal supporter of the Communist International. Comrade Bittelman, will you con- tend that a fight against the Two-and- a-Half International ideology as pro- posed in the report of the federation secretary, is a symptom of petty bourgeois pacifist illusions? Or will you hold that to insist upon a Marx- ian-Leninist education of our party membership together with the reor- ganization of the party on the basis of shop nuclei, also part of the report, is a sign that the Hungarian section is petty bourgeois pacifist and there- fore a menace to our party? Comrade Bittelman is using. methods that are @ real menace to the party in an at- tempt to discredit: a whole section of party workers who are good Commun: ists and who are acting ‘as true Bol- sheviks only bécause he happens not to agree with them on party tactic. Comrade Bittelman then takes up my presentation of the minority at the convention, Says Bittelman in his article: “Comrade Gitlow resented very much the charge of opportunism di- rected by the central executive com- mittee against the minority for its policy of emasculating the Workers Party and building a substitute for it. In reply to this charge Comrade Gitlow advised the Hungarian con- vention to examine the personnel of the majority and minority of the central executive committee. To assist the convention in this examin- ation Comrade Gitlow volunteered # bit of information. He said the minority is composed of comrades of long standing in the labor move- ment, people who have suffered for the movement, have served prison terms for their ideas and have there- by proven their fitness for leader- ship in the American Communist Party. I do not recall, whether Comrade Gitlow volunteered any in- formation on the record of members of the majority. But the conclus- fon that is to be drawn from his statement was that members of the majority of the central executive committee do not possess virtues at- tributed by him to the minority, at least in the same measure and therefore the contentions of the cen- tral executive committce must not be taken seriously.” Noeodless to sam that the shove is ta be conjured into being by sound. /comnlete distortion of what I did say ing the magic eae ee labor party.” ease 4 credit-an opponent in a party discus- sion. Comrade Bittelman shoul Stick to facts. Comrade Bittelman knows what'I said. What I said was in answer to the charge that the majority calls the minority liquidaters. In reference to this I asked the delegates to examine the personnel of the minority and their service in the Communist move- ment to determine whether or not th« minority is made up of comrades who want to liquidate the Communist Party. I pointed out that the minor ity was composedsof members who had been active in the left wing of the socialist party and in the organ- ization of the Communist Party of the country. I stated further that these comrades had fought for the party, defended it in all kinds of situations, and had gone to jail for it. These are facts. Bittleman and the whole ma- jority cannot deny them. As a fur- ther example let us take Comrade Ruthenberg. Comrade Ruthenberg is of the minority. The majority brands him as a liquidator. Yet,after having spent three years in prison for the Communist Party he is again, as a re. sult of the Bridgeman trials, facing a ten year sentence for his loyalty to the party. Nevertheless, Bittelman and his supporters, many of whom are recent adjuncts to the party, have the audacity to brand him and others of the minority like him as liquidators. On the question of opportunism I will answer Comrade Bittelman a little further on. Comrade Bittelman also distorts an- other statement I made. He states in his article that I said the following: “That the Russian Communist Party initiated a movement for the organiza- tion of Soviets, Why did the Russian party do it? Why did the Russian party build non-Communist, non-parti- san political bodies such as Soviets? Because the Russian party knew that by means of these Soviets it will be able to mobilize large masses of work- ers and poor farmers, organize them around itself for revolutionary strug- gles against capitalism. The Ameri- can party has the same duties to per- form in the United States. It must therefore create non-partisan politi- cal bodies in order to achieve the above end. Consequently the Work ers Party of America must carry on @ campaign for a farmer-labor party.” The above is a complete falsifica- tion of what I said. When the politi- eal secretary of a Communist Party resorts to such deliberate methods of misrepresentation in the furtherance of factionalism, the party is bound to wuffer severely, Now what did I say on the question of Soviets? .I said that the Russian Communist Party participated in the Soviets even though the Soviets were not Commun- ist bodies and even though they were not integral parts of the Bolshevik Party. That did not stop the Russian Bolshevik party from raising the slo gan of all power to the Sovietr thereby through the revolutionary struggle that ensued making the So- viets the instruments of state power and the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I used this argument to counteract the sectarian poison that is being injected into our party by the majority that maintains that only through its own organization can the party wage a Communist politica’ struggle, and that it is opportunism for the party to wage political strug- gles thru the instrumentality of other organizations. The farmer-labor party I therefore contended could be made an instrument of our political strug- gle even though it is not a Communist body. The British Communist Party demonstrated that it is possible to do so when it ran Communists on the labor party ticket in England. Comrade Bittelman follows up with a statement that when a representative of the minority finds it necessary to resort to such arguments as those re- lated above it would prove that his cause is in a very bad way. But dear Comrade Bittleman you are a member of the ©. E. C. of a Communist party. Don’t manufacture arguments your- self and then credit them to some member of the minority. They wil’ call your bluff every time. And don’t wind up your argument by saying that five or six delegates abstained fron voting. You know that all the dele gates voted and it five or eight did not vote how comes it that you could not convince them to vote for the ma jority? In,order therefore to infer that your imaginary five or eight (yov are not sure) were for the majority you end up by saying that it really required some courage for the one lone delegate who voted for the major ity to raise his voice against the mi- nority, That it took no courage to speak for the majority Comrade Bit telman well knows. No blackjacks or guns were used. Even Comrad: Bittelman was permitted over twe and a half hours to speak on the ma jority. The lone delegate got the same courtesy that all the other dele gates received, If he didn’t let him present charges ‘to the C, B.°C.: and the C. B. C. will act accordingly. Comrade Bittelman introduced a trick resolution at .the Hungarian convention, In his resolution he failed to include an out and out in dorsement by the delegates. of the ma jority thesis, This resolution was 80 framed that supporters of the minor. lity position if they were not or the watch could easily be fooled into vot ‘protest most vehemently againsi|ing for his resolution in the belie! weliberave falsidcation 1 Alm Nek: Mien. ean a indonoeminns ct, Sng Pees ens eh a oO RE, oe { majority. The first paragraph of the resolution is proof sufficient to the above contention, It is as follows: “The convention of the Hungarian section accepts the report of the cen- tral executive committee submitted to it by Comrade Bittelman and pledges its full support to the pro- gram of Bolshevizing the party as out- lined in the program of the central executive committee particularly the section which calls for an ideological struggle against all opportunistic tend- encies in the party.” He wanted the Hungarian conven- tion to pledge itself for an ideological campaign against opportunism and op- portunistic tendencies in the party, Opportunism Bittelman defined as par- ticipation by the party in the farmer. labor party movement and the oppor- tunistic tendencies are the tendencies of the minority. When the Hungarian comrades suggested that Comrade Bit- telman, if he did not want the Hun- garian convention to go on record for the majority, that he change that clause in include acceptance of C. E. C. report and a fight against the Two- and-a-Half International tendency, Bit- telman refused. Bittelman, who re- fuses to include in his resolution a plank against Two-and-a-Half Inter- national tendencies in our party brands the Hungarian convention as petty bourgeois pacifist and opportun- istic because they insist that the ©. I. decision in this respect he carried out. The antics of Comrade Bittel- man are really ludicrous. The trag- edy of it, however, is due to the fact that they are seriously considered by our membership which holds in high esteem whatever the political secre tary of the party has to say or do. Comrade Bittelman objects because the Hungarian convention wants to see the decision of the R. 1 L. U. put into effect. The Hungarian com- rades as well as all other comrades would really like to know what the in- dustrial department has actually done to put the decision of the Profitern into effect. They know that unless it is that our industrial work will con- tinue to suffer severely. Don’t be come indignant Comrade Bittelman but show us what the majority has really done with this most important decision affecting at the present time one of our most important tasks. Comrade Bittelman after distorting everything that Comrade Amter said at the convention objects because Comrade Amter brought in Comrade Pepper’s name in his speech to the convention. Comrade Bittelman, without the wink of an eyelash, onthe matter of injecting Comrade Pepper’s name has this to say: “The point that I wish to raise here is on what ground will Com-' rade Amter and the minority justi- fy the raising of this issue in the party? By what arguments will they prove that such speches as Comrade Amter’s are contributing to the well- fare of the Workers Party? Fac- tionalism as a rule is most ram- pant in pre-convention periods but it would seem that there must be a limit, to it somewhere.” It little behooves Comrade Bittel- man to preach against factionalism in our party. He has been an arch fac- tionalist in the Jewish federation of which he was secretary and at all times in the party. The manner in which the present majority of the party succeeded in removing Comrade Pepper from valuable service to our party was a crime against the party. It was actuated by the ugliest faction- al motives. Comrade Bittelman was a party to that crime. No single man has rendered the American party as much valuable service as did Comrade Pepper. The majority of the C. BE. C. having closed an alliance in a bound caucus with Comrade Lore branded by the C. I. as a Two-and-a-Half Interna- tionalist, unable to withstand the Communist criticism of Comrade Pep- per decided to get rid of him. The mistake the majority made is that they did not as they had hoped to, get rid of the Bolshevik elements in the party when they got rid of Pep- per. And now after the majority has been and still is guilty of a thousand factional sins, after they have con- taminated with their unholy alliance the party with the ideology of the Jett social democrats, they come out and try to raise the cry of factionalism against the minority. We hurl the charge back into Bittelman’s teeth and into the teeth of the whole ma- jority. Why does the majority s' support Lore and with his sup seek to crush the minority the fact that the Comm' tional, March, 1924, has unity be established between jority and minority? To! Comrade Bittelman closes arth cle with a resume of the act! 4 the Hungarian section. He that the membership of the section is very small, and iieg to ply that it is due to the the Hungarian section neg among the numerous garian ers who are employedyin the basic dustries, In this r Comrade telman ignores cympletely the of the executive of the tion to the convention. cm lbuerenirt 2 it was pointed out that the Hungarian section had made special efforts to reach the Hungarian workera em ed in the basic industries, But ome redo Bittelman should not blame ie Hungarivn section of the party for _Continy 7