The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 31, 1924, Page 4

Page Four THE DAILY WORKER Wednesday, December 31, 1924 Discussion Party’s Immediate Tasks WORKERS PARTY REPUDIATING F ARMER- LABORISM By WILLIAM Z, FOSTER. The results of the membership meetings held in five principal cities on Sunday, Dec. 28, show that our party is definitely emerging from its farmer-labor illusions. Six weeks ago practically the entire membership of the Workers (Communist) Party was profoundly convinced that it could very profitably use the slogan of the farmer-labor party. In spite of the tremendous obstacles that have had to be overcome, the inetria, the or- ganized resistance to the discussion in some sections of the party, the Smoke screens that have been thrown out by the minority to hide the real issue, the herrings that have been drawn across the trail—yet, after six weeks’ discussion, the central execu- tive committee can say that it has convinced a majority of the member. , ship for the Communist policy laid \ down in its thesis. New York City and Chicago are the largest centers of our party, where party life is most intense and where, therefore, the discussion penetrated deepest among the members, The vote in these two cities is therefore most interesting. Chicago, for example, had a mem. bership meeting six weeks ago which was carried by the minority over whelmingly—by a vote of 175 to 76. Even after the discussion in the party press for six weeks, the mem- bership in Chicago was still largely in favor of the farmer-labor slogan. When the membership meeting, the largest in the party history, opened on Dec. 28, the farmer-labor advo- cates undoubtedly would have car- ried their proposition if a vote had been taken without discussion. But when the minority, advocates of the farmer-labor party, were forced to defend their -position in open de. bate, before the assembled member- ship, they collapsed entirely. During the actual progress of the debate, in the few hours between 3 o'clock and ii, the block of farmer-labor senti- ment was shattered. When the smoke cleared away, the central executive committee had a clear majority of 399 against 362. New York City showed us this pro- cess carried even further than in Chi- cago. The farmer-labor advocates had banked upon New York. They exerted every effort to win it, and sent their star speaker there. The central executive committee not only won a majority there, completely overcom- ing the Mlusion that the farmer-labor slogan can be used to assemble masses under present conditions, but the majority vote was very decided, being 482 against 330. We can see that in New York it is a question of but a few weeks until the farmer-la- bor ghost will be laid to rest. The twin cities meeting, Minneapo- lis and St. Paul, where the central executive committee gained a decided majority vote of the membership, is also interesting. There our party is actually faced with a functioning farmer-labor party, something that exists nowhere else in the United States. It might have been supposed that there, if anywhere, the member- lette movement is also a help, as well as the party discussion, in overcom- ing the illusions of our farmer-labor Communism. The Minnesota cities cast their vote for the central execu- tive committee thesis. Detroit and Cleveland are just be- ginning the process of laying the farmer-labor ghosts. Unfortunately it has been impossible for the C. E. C. to give these cities much special at- tention during the discussion and these two cities could not reach the Bolshevist point of view so quickly as did New York, Chicago and’ the Twin Cities. But even in Detroit and Cleveland, where the farmer-labor minority in our party won the vote, |we see that the farmer-labor illusion jis speedily fading. Whereas six weeks |ago the vote would have been almost |unanimous for the farmer-labor party yet on last Sunday, it just barely squeaked by. Give Detroit and Cleveland a little while more and they will redeem their record. It is very illuminating, it is very educational, to see this tremendous [reorientation taking place in our party with such rapidity—and it is also a matter of gratfication to see how sound is the heart of our party, how readily it responds to the Communist line in political debate. Consider the tremendous difficulties, that the cen- tral executive committee has been forced to struggle against. It went to a membership that was totally un- prepared, with the proposal to change a basic policy, for which the entire party had been educating the move- ment for two years. As a conse quence the C. EB. C. had almost the entire party against it at first. In addition were other obstacles. Certain language sections of our party have carried on no discussion what- ever. Following an un-Bolshevist line, their officials decided to save their members from the disturbance of a discussion and, picking what looked like the easiest way, cast in their lot with the old slogan. In these sections it is only now, after six weeks, that the C. E. C. is finally penetrating with the discussion. Other groups of the membershiy had been poisoned by the under- ground propaganda that has been car- ried on thruout the year by the minor- ity national caucus, which brought many groups to the discussion caucus- bound, with the legend of the Lore alliance, with lurid tales of the “op: portunist” sins of various members of the C. E. C. All of these things re quired the open discussion of the membership meetings to dispel. In spite of all obstacles, however, and starting with the party almost en- tirely against it, the policy of the central executive committee has in six short weeks won a majority of the membership. The farmer-labor advocates are making their last stand. The policy of the C. E. C. is sweep- ing the party, and in another month or so it will have the support of the overwhelming mass of the party. {Hveryone will soon be admitting that \the farmer-labor ghost will quit walk- ing before the party comes to its con- |vention. That is the meaning of the ship of the Workers Party would be | vote taken by our members in New the most obsessed with the illusion | York, Chicago, the Twin Cities, De- of the farmer-labor slogan. But it/troit and Cleveland on Dec. 28. The seems that practical experience with | Workers Party is emerging from the the farmer-labor section of the LaFol- |farmer-labor illusion. WHY NOT CHEAP MILK? By MANUEL GOMEZ. ADOXES are often highly illu- minating. Consider the astonish- ing paradox of our minority: farmer- labor Communists who insist that the idea of a mass farmer-labor party was a childish illusion from the start. i The comrades of the minority pro- fess to be greatly amused. They take their amusement seriously and the party should take it seriously too. It would seem that they have been sud- denly struck by the “naive innocence” with which our party entered origin- ally into the movement for a “broad, all-inclusive” labor party. Their pres- ent attitude—an attitude of ridicule toward the conception that there must be a broad mass base for any labor party agitation—is too import- ant to let go by without analysis. It proves conclusively that the majority has been right in labeling the minor- ity tendency opportunistic. The labor party campaign was an application of the united front. But why do Communists go into united front campaigns? For the purpose of building the Communist Party. Of course, but that is not all. “It is a question . . . of going forward with the rising masses of the work- ers,” said Comrade Zinoviev at the ssecting of the enlarged B. C. of the Yntern, Dec. 4, 1921, when the united front policy was being form- ulated. Independent of what organization- al benefits may accrue to the Com- munist Party, a Communist united, front campaign must be based upon an issue which in itself constitutes a forward movement for the work class. Byery step of our policy must be root- ed in the understanding that “the Communists have no interests sep- arate and apart from the working ‘class as a whole.” Consequently, when local farmer- lobor parties were springing up on all “ sides—when great masses were re- sponding to the farmer-abor slogan —when large numbers of workers were moving, and apparently, for all their confusion and vacillations, in the right direction—the Workers Party threw itself into the campaign for a nation-wide farmer-labor party, based on the trade unions, organiza- tions of poor farmers and working class political parties. We did this in an effort to win the leadership over the masses, to unmask the re- actionary labor bureaucracy, and to gain influence and members for the Workers Party. But it was not just a trick to outwit the A. #. of L. fak- ers, altho every one of them from Johnston to Fitzpatrick, tried to make the masses believe the whole busi- ness was nothing but a cynical Com- munist maneuver. It was a sincere move on our part to participate in the creation of a federated party of workers and farmers—not an “all-in- ciusive” party necessarily, but one based on organized masses, in which the Workers Party would be a mili- tant left wing. Communists realize the shortcom- ings of a “farmer-labor party” and its creation is certainly not a matter of principle with us, but we were con- fronted with what migiit possibly have been a major historica: develop- ment in the United States and we were obliged to take an attitude to- ward it. In any case, we heid to the conception that a farmer-labor campaign must be considered object- ively (from the point o. view of the interests of the broad masses) as well as subjectively (from the point of view of ..e Workers /arty as ar organization). Now the minority refers to thi. as our “illusion.” Following upon the hectic adventures in the field of farm- or-laborism, under the guiding star of Comrade Pepper, they have developed & penchant for farmer-laborism and farmer-labor slogans, under apy and all circumstances, irrespective of the movement of the masses—in spite of the fact that the historical develop- ment in the United States may take an entirely different road from that of the farmer-labor party. The following apology is from Com- rade Bedacht, who has organized the deviations of the minority into a sys- tem of pseudo- Marxian deviation: “Tho the campaign for a labor par- ty may or may not result in the form- ation of such a party, yet, the process of the campaign itself, the maneuvers of the campaign, would bring us in contact with the masses, would strengthen our party numerically, would teach our party maneuvers and activities, and is bound to extend the influence of the party to greater numbers of workers and exploited farmers.” In this paragraph we have the whole secret of the errors of the mi- nority. Here we have the idea of maneu- vers without a practical goal (the minority comrades themselves speak of @ broad labor party as an illusion). Maneuvers without any basis in the forward movement of the workers. Maneuvers for practice, maneuvers for the sake of experience, maneuvers for the purpose of making immediate contacts for the Workers Party. For this, Bedacht {s willing to educate the masses to farmer-laborism, with the farmer-labor slogan, against their own ultimate class interests. Now we are in a position to see why it is that the minority is con- stantly shouting for “action,” “organ- ization,” without the slightest regard for the objective needs of the mass- es, and why they ridicule the major ity for thinking in terms of the mass- es. The minority wants to “organ- ize,” “crystallize,” “maneuver” every- thing in sight—or out of it. A half- dozen fake, camouflage farmer-labor parties (which could, no doubt, be “crystallized”) ‘would not help the working class onward, but would only confuse it, Nevertheless, we might get a few members for the Workers Party. And we find ourselves in the com- fortable paradise of the subjectivist. If it is good for us organizationally, it must be good! Comrade Bedacht and his group have turned our revolutionary mot- to upside down. Instead of “The Communists have no interests sep- arate and apart from the working class as a whole,” we find the fatuous doctrine of “The working class has no interests separate and apart from the Communists.” A queer sort of Marxism this, which bases its policy on the Workers Party instead of on the working class as a whole! Such policy logically translates itself into the slogan, any- thing to get members! Which is a slight variation of the old S. P. slo- gan of, anything to get votes! Our minority comrades are to be sharply differentiated from the opportunistic fakers of the S. P., but that is where their tendency leads. Eduard Bernstein, the father of revisionism, wrote in 1893: “The final aim is nothing, the movement is everything.” This is the beginning and end of opportunism. WHAT SORT OF AN ANIMAL IS A FARMER-LABOR PARTY ANYHOW? R. BAKER. ‘HERE is a tremendous fear among the defendersof the mi- nority thesis that if we abandon, for the time being, the farmer-labor par- ty slogan, (and that is all that re- mains of this great mass-class move- ment) we will remain naked and iso- lated from the masses. What do we mean by going to the masses? We mean fighting side by side with them on their many battle fronts to improve their living condi- tions, to’ ward off the attacks of the employers, rallying them for strug- gles against the misleaders of the unions, fighting the capitalist state and its tyranny, and, in these battles imbuing the workers with a revolu- tionary ideology. A farmer-labor party, as we: know it is an occasional conference of de- legates from the unions, generally party members, but, our real contact with the masses is made in the un- ions from which the. delegates are sent to a F, L. P. conference. Let us not forget that our past labor parties were successful only insofar as we had prestige, influence and leadership in the unions, and now that these labor parties disap- peared in smoke, we still remain in the unions and our prestige and con- tact with the masses remains un- changed. We have developed our leadership there, not by talking alone, (this is for the information of those comrades who carry no union cards) but, by participating in their strikes, and that means our strikes as well, by initiating movements to improve the unions as fighting organs of the class struggle, by discrediting the reaction- ary leadership; but, above all by fighting side by side with the organ- ized workers when there wa fighting to be done. That is how we did it, comrades, and not by talking about farmer-labor parties at a time when wages are being slashed right and left, at a time when unemployment is scourging the working class, at™4)) time when vicious and concentrated efforts are being made to destroy what there is of the labor movement in America. ~ I have read plenty of arguments and heard them too, that you can safely talk about a farmer-labor par- ty in a union, but, when you begin speaking about the Workers Party, then you get kicked out of the un- ion. This may be true about those who go into the union jist to talk. But we are still judged by what we do and not by what we say. We can’t fool the workers into a farmer-labor party, in the unions we are known as Communists, and the workers know that when we organize a farm- er-labor party, we are but organiz- ing a poor imitation of the Workers Party. Let me reiterate again; that the workers will follow us into any unit- ed front movement only insofar as they have confidence in us as Com- munists and by that time they are ready to follow us into the Workers Party or at least to support it. Locally, we notice that those com- rades who could not be reached by any means during the time we were building the Philadeiphia farmer-la- bor party are now violently in favor of it. Comrades, where were you when we needed you; when we plead- ed for your support; when we sent you mandatory letters calling for your support? And, if we start another F. L. P. where will you be? To you comrades, who are not in the unions, T am almost tempted to give you an- other one of these parties. Perhaps, you would take a little more interest in it, now that you are talking so much about it, there being, unfortun-! gained 126 ‘ ately, no samples left. If you could see one of these queer animals that we were ‘building right and left only a few months ago, you wouldn't speak of the united front in the same breath that you speak ofa F. L. P. But, isn’t it strange comrades, how these mass- class parties disappeared when we de- serted them for just a few short months to carry on the Communist campaign? It is interesting to analyze the line- up in this controversy; the comrades who claim to be the “theoreticians” and the “Marxians” of the party, with few exceptions, want a farmer-labor party “dead or alive,” and the com- rades fighting against it are the crud- er proletarian elements to whom the class struggle is a - bitter fact, who bear the scars of many battles against the bosses and the mislead- ers of labor, and incidently, the com- rades who made possible the labor parties that we had. To those com- rades of the minority who are in the unions, I just want to say; after reading all these articles take an eve- ning off to visit your union and raise the question there, and you will dis- cover that these strange people will not listen to you, they are too busy trying to prevent the impending wage cut, or planning an organization drive to strengthen the union or else dis- cussing the problems of unemploy- ment as they effect the local union. Also, remember that the trade un- ions after all, (putting aside the sick and death benefit societies for a mo- ment) are the basis, the raw ma- terial, from which any labor party is to be built. Let us mot pay too much attention to the panicky fear of “isolation.” A good percentage of our membership is in the unions, and we couldn’t isolate them if we try. ‘We are a part of the masses, and we fought on the united fronts against the masters before the slogan was issued. This is the most hopeful sign in our party. It is the iron fact that will always guard our party from (gation. That will keep it healthy and in direct contact with the mass- es. And if our non-union comrades would utilize the splendid energies they are displaying in this discus- sion, towards organizing tne workers in their trades, there would be no need for them to grow panic strick- en about isolation. ‘We have a limited number of com- rades in the unions, with a limited amount of time and energy at their disposal, and we want to utilize this most effectively by fighting for lead- ership as Communists on the burn- ing issues confronting the workers now and not by yelling about arti- ficial slogans and movements. As Communists we are fighting today and we will continue doing so and lead our followers into the political party we represent and typify, the Workers (Communist) Party. How I would like to put some of our college graduates into the unions for a while and make them fight there not just listen and watch us fight- ing. Our district organizer writes a bril- Mant article on “Words and Deeds” but for four months battles raged in ourselves if we try, but we will lead the masses into our party. Philadel- phia comrades should remember A FEW FACTS ABOUT MINNESOTA By H. M. WICKS ‘O desperate are the majority at their complete rout in the present party discussien that their sole re- maining weapon of offense and de- fense is personal attacks. This des- peration has permeated even the wind-swept plains of Minnesota, where Comrade Hathaway diverts attention from the facts of his great “united front” with Mahoney by charging that Wicks, while in Minnesota, evidently misunderstood the instruction of the C. BE. ©. and thought he was on a “vacation.”. He assails me on account of my article concerning Leninist leadership, but he does not reply to the article! Hathaway says the “blood of the Minnesota comrades boils” when they read my article. I strongly suspect Comrade Hathaway presumes too much when the professes to speak for all Minnesota comrades. It seems rather strange that at this late time, In the period of party discussion their “blood” should “boil.” As to the part I took in Minnesota, as the representative of the then cen- tral executive committee, I will re- mind Comrade Hathaway of the fact that the district committee in Min- nesota, of which he was a member, unanimously adopted a resolution praising my work there, and sent it to the C. E. C. and a copy to me per- sonally in New York which I have before me at this moment. Evidently my imperfections only became ap- parent to Comrade Hathaway in this month of December, 1924, but certain- ly not in September, 1923, As the late unlamented Mr. Post, of Battle Greek, would say: “There’s a Reason!” I think this assault can be taken fort what it is worth. As to other Minnesota comrades, I am certain they will recall that there was never a meeting of our comrades that I did not attend. In addition to that I spoke at meetings of the de- fense society, Young Workers League celebrations, a picnic, lectured before branches, attended general member- ship meetings in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, wrote publicity daily for our press regarding the convention we were helping arrange, familiarized myself with the complicated election laws of the state, straightened out a local fight in the party, held confer- ences with progressive labor People, wrote a constitution and by-law for the proposed organization, besides pre- paring exhaustive and detailed reports to the C. E. C. and writing articles for the DAILY WORKER in my capacity as one of its editors. Aside from these few tasks that kept me oc- cupied from twelve to sixteen hours a day I devoted my time to “private” matters. The one time I left a committee meeting before it was concluded, when there was nothing but formal routine to finish, I spent the evening at the home of Comrade R. C. Hedlund, who was not then a member of our party, but who wa supporter and whom Comrade Hathaway, personally, ad- vised me to cultivate. On the few occasions I did not spend the whole day at party head- quarters, engaged in preparations for the convention, I attended the ses- sions of the convention of the Amer- ican Bar Association and listened to Mr. Hughes dilate upon the Monroe Doctrine as appiled to this stage of capitalist imperialism, Mr. Taft, John new branches, and above we mob- ilized our membership into action. We enthused our comrades to fight for our party as never before, and during this same period we carried on a splendid and successful campaign to help the Paterson strikers. Our com- rades were responsible for more un- ions endorsing Foster and Gitlow than we could muster to the second con- ference of the local F. L. P. to hear the report of the delegates from St. Paul. Our comrades couldn’t get enthused over a F. L. P. because they knew it to be a huge joke. We can learn several lessons from our local situation. First, our party needs Bolsheviza- Second, our membership will much sooner fight for our party than for a diluted F. L, P. Third, that even if we decide for a F. L. P. we must de- velop a real Communist Party to do it with, Let us not fool ourselves, even our Workers Party campaign, which was about 400 per cent bet- ter and more effective than our F. L. P. campaign, it was conducted by a comparatively small percentage of our membership. If you don’t believe 3 : eef tion, lot of education and discipline.’ W. Davis and Lord Birkenhead of Britain. As one of the editors of the WORKER it was my obvious duty to cover such a gathering. Every im- portant detail of this pow-wow was Published in the WORKER and writ- ten by me, This may have been a purely “personal” matter, in the eyes of Comrade Hathaway. This meeting of the bar association was the only time I got near those who practice at the bar. A Few Facts. Just what was our strategy in Min- nesota and how was it carried out in practice? Our task there was to break away the farmers and workers from the leadership of the petty-bourgeois pol- itical machine that dominated the farmer-labor movement. The former majority of the C. BE. C, laid down three manouvers: 1, We were to endeavor to organ- ize the delegates to the Minnesota con-’ vention into a branch of the federated farmer-labor party. This was our major demand. (The present majority would have tried to organize them in- to the Workers Party.) 2. We were to yield a point and simply call the organization the Min- nesota federated farmer-labor party, without affiliation with the national party organized at Chicago in July of that year, and send delegates to the January unity conference pro- posed by the federated party. 3. As a very last resort and as our minimum demand we were to elect delegates to the proposed unity con- ference. Failing this we were to withdraw. We yielded the first two before the convention started and in spite of my instructions to the contrary, Hatha- way and the steering committee refus- ed to make a fight for the later. Comrade Hathaway says I rushed up the aisle and told them to “split the goddam thing wide open.” Possibly those were my words. Unquestionably they were my sentiments. I sat thru the whole convention, watched every move, and the last moment, late Sun- day night, after we had successfully fought Van Lear and a railroad broth- erhood faker, the critical moment ar- rived, when we, as Communists, were to strive for our one and only de- mand from the convention. A certain Jules Anderson, editor of a labor sheet at Crookston, Minnesota (the delight- ful symbolism of the name of the town in which Anderson lives strikes one foreibly) made a vicious attack upon the Workers Party the federated party and the world Communist move- ment. Then came a fraudulant point of order which Mahoney, with his cus- tomary trickery, sustained. Why did not our comrades at least appeal from Mahoney’s decision and endeavor to defend us against this vile assault as 1 demanded they should? I leave the unswer to Hathaway, who was chairman of the steering committee. This capitulation was the logical result of the whole policy pursued by Comrade Hathaway in Minnesota. It is of a piece with his lamentations over the fact that he failed to be elected secretary of the working peop- le’s political league at the Duluth con- vention of July 18, 1923, where some- one “exposed” the fact that he was a member of the Workers Party and of the executive of the federated farmer-labor party. His exposure (?) as a Communist came quite by ac- cident.. It was no fault of his. No one would have ever suspected his affiliations from his actions. In my humble opinion, had we chal- lenged Mahoney’s ruling at Minneap- olis in the September convention, we could have carried our point. But we had no floor leadership, Hathaway, of of the majority’s prize trade union- ists, is helpless as a child on the floor of a convention. His forte is conducting diplomatic negotiations with gentlemen of the Mahoney cal tbre and preserving “unity” with them. Byen after the contemptible perform- ance of Mahoney, Hathaway still sang peans to this fakir and knight of the double-cross! In the report of the steering com- mittee of this convention, signed by Hathaway, Comrade Otto Wangerin and J. O. Johnson, the statement is made that one of these comrades had been active in the railroad labor moye- ment, but not in the political phase, and the other had consistently op- posed political action and declared himself a syndicalist. So, our sole political expert was Comrade Hatha- way. I am certain elther Comrade Wangerin or Comrade Johnson could have done equally as well without the guidance of Comrade Hathaway. When Hathaway stated that I left the building after the adjournment of that convention and before our party members met to review the deviation, he is right. That was a strictly “private” matter, tho it might have had some effect upon the member- ship. I was so infuriated that I con- sidered it inadvisable to vent my ire on many of our comrades who had done the best they could under the circumstances, After I calmed down @ bit I came to the meeting and endeavored ta make the best of a bad situation, knowing that many of our comrades were inexperienced and that even Comrade Hathaway, despite his pose as a clever political manipulator, was after all, but a mere novice in the hands of Mahoney. The school he is now following will not contribute to his political acumen, if his attempt to assail me with slan- der, instead of replying to my ar- gument, is indicative of the direction of his development, CANNON RECITES HISTORY By ABRAHAM JAKIRA “HE right wing never has any courage to stand up and fight directly for its policy, but tries by devious ways, by indirection and by shifting issues, to advance its influ- ence and smuggle in its policy,” says Comrade Cannon in the DAILY WORKER of Dec, 11th. We are not going to discuss the validity of this statement, but will try to show that it applies to the majority fully one hun- dred per cent. What Are the Issues? The theses of both groups deal with several important issues. ‘The farmer- labor party, undoubtedly, occupies the outstanding place among these, but each of the other issues are at lest of sufficient importance as to be dis- cussed by the party membership. We must not try to smuggle in these is- sues just because we are discussing the farmer-labor party. The issue of the Second-and-half International ten- dency was important enough to be seriously considered by the enlarged session of the Communist International last spring. So why all the exitement of Comrade Cannon when Comrade Ruthenberg raises “the issue of the opportunistic errors of Comrade Lore”? Before the discussion is over many other issues will undoubtedly be given consideration whether Comrade Cannon likes it or not, What Is Not the Issue The majority on the other hand raises quite a number of “shifting is- sues” which have little to do with the Present discussion. An active com- rade here suggested to me that an article be written entitled—‘What is not the issue.” Thig was after he par- ticipated in the discussion in one of able time to “prove” that the amal- gamation slogan is good, that the trade unions are important factors in the class struggle, that there many is the right wing that is resorting to shifting issues.” No Courage to Stand Up Comrade Cannon tells us that it was not before “the August meeting of the C. BE. C.” that “Comrades Foster, Bit- telman and myself began to ask a few questions.” It was only after the August meeting that Comrade Foster “was beginning to assert his right and duty to participate actively in the party leadership.” What does it mean? Does it mean that Comrade Foster while a leading member of the C. E. C. until August did not assert his right and duty as a member of the C. H. C? Does jt mean that he did not have the “courage to stand up and fight direct- ly for his policies?” History Now, as to “history” quoted by Comrade Cannon. He rightly reminds us that the former C. EB. C. was in disagreement with him on a number of occasions. We can add, we also op- posed the expulsion of the “right wing” led by Comrade Olgin from the Jewish Federation despite of the bit- ter opposition of the Comrade Bittel- man. But we also did something else. We split the “right wing” (and not the federation) of the Jewish federa- tion, we broke the open alliance be- Lore and Cannon. For Comrade Car non has always occupied the extre side of the right ‘wing in the The present minority never } illusions about Lore and if ° carried around,” to use Comri. non’s expression, it was jus nurse carries around a sick chil the moment Comrade Lore -ma effort to make the F, F. L. an in ual membership organization he called to order.) At the same Heats Mand were made to ce. ise the party machinery and party press and with considerable cess. There was no danger right wing exerting his inf long as the party wes cor the left elements, The f the Second-and-half Int deney in the party © ative when. 8 OF by the ruling Wer C. B.C. As to Comrade! (Continued © ~~ tween Salutsky and Lore and between hip