The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 2, 1925, Page 4

| propaganda, Sage Four THE DAILY WORKER Friday, veneer 2, 1925 Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST Menshevik Conception of the Minority By EARL R. BROWDER. CHARACTERISTIC feature of} menshevism is its mechanical fonception of the coliapse of capital- iam. It is the completely false idea} that capitalism will be destroyed, not by the action of the revolutionary working class, but by a “dying out,” or an automatic falling to pieces, or a walking over a precipice—after which the working class will joyfully enter into their own. Such conceptions pre- vent the working class from entering the struggle, from steeling themselves for the fierce class war, from throw- ing themselves whole-heartedly into the building up of the revolutionary party which alone can lead the neces- sary struggle for power. Our minority in the present party discussion has a tendency in this di- rection that is very pronounced. A striking example is found in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 30, in the “cartoon by Comrade Minor, one of the prominent leaders of the minority. Comrade Minor’s cartoon shows capitalism as a decrepit old man time with the years 1914 and 1918 marked in bold letters. The present, the year 1925, on this path of capital- ism, ends abruptly at a deep preci- pice, and the feeble old capitalist sys- tem is blindly shaking its walking stick over the precipice, preparatory to stepping into space. The imagination of the~ backward workers looking at this picture will doubtless picture the next step—capi- talism over the precipice—without any act on the part of the working class, which is not in the picture. And if they do supply something to fill in the blank, something to give the final push to capitalism, they will perhaps be inclined to agree with the minority, that a nice little “class” farmer-labor party will be strong enough with its little finger to give capitalism its coup de grace. This is a menshevist cartoon, the significance of which is heightened by the fact 'that it was drawn right at this time, when the party is concen- trating its attention upon just such theoretical deviations, which find their theoretical expression in the wandering alone down the’ path of thesis of the minority. Dialectic Materialism vs. Metaphysics By SID. A. BUSH Ow that open discussion on im- mediate party tasks is carried on in the press and all party units for a period of several weeks, the over- whelming majority of the membership, no doubt has a clear conception of the different points of view held by the leading comrades of the party on the subject of carrying on a campaign for a “class farmer-labor party,” From the point of view of sheer pol- emics the controversy over the slogan “for a class farmer-labor party” and the carrying on of a major campaign for it at this time, resolves itself in- to a discussion between dialectic materialists on the one hand, and metaphysicians on the other hand, ‘Those who reason from the point of view of dialectic materialism sur- vey the world of phenomena, analyze their component parts, objective and subjective; discover the changes that have taken place, detect the new trend in events, ascertain the direc- tions of the various tendencies, which are being propelled by the new con- ditions; and, knowing their goal the dialectic materialists form policies, lay down rules, initiate maneuvers to counteract those tendencies which are obnoxious, and triy to accellerate others which are favorable towards the realization of the goal. And here let us remember that the goal is the principle, the fundamental law, which is not being altered to conform to a changed condition. Only the man- euvers, the policies, that is, the strategy and tactics are being changed —because of changed conditions. The metaphysicians, on the other hand, once they grasp a fact at a cer- tain time, they hold on to it most tenaciously. They cannot believe that the facts they grasped and saw so clearly could disappear. They cannot conceive that new conditions have arisen which demand a revaluation of previous conceptions, and _ the present demands the setting into motion such organs of action that must of necessity be different from those hitherto used. To the metaphy- sicians things appear more or less static, therefore, they cling to the old, outworn and obsolete formula. That is the method of the minority. The thesis of the majority of the central executive committee states: “Three years ago our party adopted the position that a labor party policy was the only way of applying the tac- tics of the united front to the pol- ftical conditions of America, To this decision our party was moved by the following considerations; The exist- ence of the strong mass movement in the direction of a farmer-labor party as evidenced by a large number of focal and state farmer-labor parties, and also by the formation of the Con- ference for Progressive Political Ac- tion, which we interpreted as the re- sult of this same mass pressure to- wards independent political action.” Since that time, however, these farmer-labor parties, this mass move- ment was absorbed by the LaFollette movément. And what is this LaFol- lette movement? The majority thesis states:— “The LaFollette combination is so- cially and politically a bourgeois MOVEMENT hostile and antagonistic to the proletarian class struggle and to the political independence of the oppressed and toiling masses.” But, as this movement, as has been demonstrated by the last elections, has the support of those elements amohg the workers and poor farmers who have been the backbone of the erstwhile mass movement for a farm- erlabor party, the majority thesis proposes to carry out the following united front tactics:— “Exposure of the bourgeois nature ot LaFolletteism, This becomes the contral problem of our agitation and It must be carried on lines: a) Form- among the masses; c) call upon the rank and file in the shops, unions, among the unemployed, to address resolution, petitions, and to hold mass meetings demanding that the ‘labor’ wing in the LaFollette combination and the LaFollette group in congress propose legislation along the lines of the demands of the masses, at the same time creating the necessary united front rank and file organiza- tion for the struggle; d) by these campaigns unmask the bourgeois nature of LaFollettism and the labor lieutenants of the LaFollette move ment, expose the futility of demo- cratic-pacifist parliamentarism and demonstrate the necessity of follow- ing the leadership of the only class political party, the Workers Party; ... as against the LaFollette party the Workers Party,... as against the fut- flity of LaFollette’s parliamentary reformism the use of the organized mass power of the workers for pol- itical ends under the leadership of the revolutionary working class pol- itical party, the Workers Party.” ‘Then, when the class struggle gains momentum the thesis proposes; “As the working masses gain mil- itancy and agressiveness the situation situation will become ripe and the necessity urgent for a general mobil- ization of all forces (that is, on the industrial economic and political fields, ete.) of labor for a concerted was successful in Russia at a partic- ular period of struggle, the Russian Communist Party committed an error for abandoning it. Because the Friends of Soviet Russia was a tremendous success, we should have continued it regardless of the changed conditions. These examples can be multiplied by the thousands. Yet, the reasoning of the minority has been so blunted by reasons better known to those who support that thesis, that the comrades cannot see the obsurd- ity of it. The minority thesis, admits that conditions have changed, it states: “The development of this movement (of the workers and farmers) side by side with the petty bourgeois pro- gressive movement led inevitably to a struggle on the part of the petty bourgeoisie to impose its leadership on it and to absorb it.” Yes, the LaFollette movement ab- sorbed what the Workers Party has built, according to Comrade Manley, at a cost of $50,000, and at the expense of the energy of the best forces of our party, which if used to a better advan- tage would have brought the Com- munist movement better resilts than the campaigning for and building of petty bourgeois reformist farmer-labor parties. The minority admits that conditions have changed, yet it de- sires to keep on the old tracks not matter how decayed they are. The methaphysical conception has brough Comrade Kaplan into a fury. He rages at the majority for having abandoned their previous ideas. He says:— “In the last election campaign the central executive committee of the Workers Party promised the workers and exploited farmers of this coun- try in the party platform that: ‘The Workers Party declares its purpose to continue the struggle to mobilize the workers and exploited farmers for independent political action thru a mass farmer-labor party’... . “After the election” he continues “the same central executive committee declares; ‘Our chief task in the immediate future is not the building of such a farmer-labor party but the strengthen- ing and developing of the Workers Party itself as the practical leader of the masses and as the only party that represent the working class in- terests and fighis for them’” — Comrade Kaplan thinks that this is an unpardonable change of front on the part of the majority of the C. E. C. When Lenin insisted upon the signing of the Brest Litovsk Treaty he was reproached by comrades of the Russian Communist Party for chang- ing his slogans and formulas almost overnight. Lenin called those com- rades “HENS.” The substance of his struggle against the triumphant cap- italist reaction.” The concerted action to be directed by “a general labor con- gress elected by the rank and file of labor....” Thus the analysis of economic and political conditions in the majority thesis and the few examples herein quoted shows the following: The majority of the central executive com- mittee after analyzing the world of phenomena nothing changes of con- ditions, ascertaining the direction the new events are taking, outlines a pol- icy demanded by the new situation confronting the party. Thus the present strategy regerd- ing/the farmer-labor question is “ex- posure of the bourgeois nature of La- Follettism” because “at the present the main strength of LaFollettism and consequently the main danger to the class struggle, comes from the ideological hegemony of LaFollette- ism over the minds of large sections of workers and poor farmers.” The strategy is in accord with Leninism. Lenin taught the Communist Party of England that as long as the masses are under the influence of the British \labor party and as long as the latter has not shown its true colors, that is, its petty bourgeois face, the Commun- ist Party cannot split those masses away and gain leadership over them until the labor party is exposed as an enemy of the workers. To expose it was the duty of the Communist Party of Britain. The tactics propsed by the majority as stated above aim at the awakening of the masses, intensification of the class struggle and gaining of leader- ship over the exploited masses thru a united front of the Communists, under the banner of the Workers (Commun- ist) Party with the rank and file, thru making the party a mass Communist Party. The strategy, tactics and aims are all directed towards the goal— overthrow of capitalism, The major- ity thesis is, therefore, a thesis of dialetic materialists. The thesis of the metaphysicians of our party, the minority states: “The slogan ‘for a farmer-labor par- ty’ remains our most effective means of agitation for political action on a class basis by the workers and poor farmers,” And why? Section four reads:— “For our party the application of this tactics was a success.” reply was as follows: “When you draw a cicle with a piece of chalk around a hen she will walk around and around the line and fear to jump over. But in the case of the hen it is more pardonable than with you for the hen did not draw the line. When you yourselves draw up for- mulas and slogans to fit a certain oc- casion you also can do away with them. And why, becauge conditions demand it.’ The lessons should be studied by the comrades of the minority. Comrade Lovestone, altho one of the authors of the minority thesis, which gtates that the farmer-labor movement was absorbed by LaFollet- teism, nevertheless, true to his met- aphysical conception, still maintains (DAILY WORKER December ist) that there is a demand on the part of the masses for a farmer-labor party. Comrade Lovestone being in charge of" the research department, and there- fore a faithful reader of many dozens of journals sees RED in every Amer- ican white guardist who happens to mumble (he phrase “farmer-labor par- ty.” On the strength of such informa- tion he is constructing a theory to prove the contention of the minority. But by the time Comrade Lovestone finishes he will find out that he built a castle which has hot air for its founda- tion. Because—and if he is not too busy writing he probably already found out that—Comrade Hathaway's report, Comrade Manley’s and Com- rade Cannon's articles punctured, demolished and blown to tit-bits the foundation upon which he built his castle consisting of five points, According to Comrade Reeve pol- itical action means nothing else than campaigning for a petty bourgeois re- formist farmer-labor party. He says: “What will the workers eventually say of the Communist movement of America if we desert the united front on the political field now?” .... Anc again “We must according to the ma- jority leave the workers and poor farm. ers entirel to LaFollette on the political field.” It is really a pity to find that there are members of the party whose knowledge of what constitutes pol- MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS By C. E, RUTHENBERG. ‘HE central executive committee majority in the discussion before the membership has made the basis of its case a sectarian appeal. In place of discussing the question, “Thru what policy can we get best results in building the Workers Party into a mass Communist Party,” which is the issue before the party, the C. BE. C. majority has dodged the issue by ans. wering argtments as to the policy thru which that end could be attained with the slogan “Build the Workers Party.” It is much simpler and easier to ad- vocate @ general slogan such as “Build the Workers Party” than to formulate and defend policies which will build the Workers Party, as has been*done in the thesis of the minor- ity of the C. C. The C. E. C. ma jority has taken full advantage of this situation. It has raised the sectarian slogan “Build the Workers Party” against policies proposed for the building of the Workers Party in an effort to confuse the issue and create the impression that the minority the- sis had some other purpose than the building of the Workers Party. As a consequence the minority has been in the position of being obliged to edu- cate the membership to an under. standing of a Bolshevist policy, while the majority was able to rely upon the natural appeal of the mere slogan “Build the Workérs Party,” without pointing out the way to the accomp- lishment of this desirable end. In arranging the membership meet- ings at which the question of the party policy was to be voted upon the c, E. C. majority so scheduled those meetings that the cities in which the Cc. E. C. majority was in a position of advantage held their meetings first. The C. E. C. majority also took full advantage of the opportunity given it by_control of the party machinery. A lecture routing for Comrade Lovestone was cancelled and Comrade Carlson sent out to Will the dates. Comrade Cannon was sent to New York three weeks ago, ostensibly for “educational work” but actually to build the fences of the C. E. C. majority in the party fight. Comrade Manley was trans- ferred to New York as eastern T. U. E. L. organizer in order to strengthen the C. E. C. majority in the New York district. Comrade Haty Winitsky was put in the DAILY WORKER pay roll as part of the campaign to insure “The Daily,” but devoied most of his time to spreading malicious fumors in support of the majority. Comrade Carlson was sent to Philadelphia as educational circuit lecturer weeks be- fore the educational circuit was or- ganized, acting as the majority repre- sentative in the Philadelphia district In spite of the natural appeal of the slogan “Build the Workers Party” even when no statement of policy to attain that result is attached to it, in spite of the C. E. C. majority select- orable fighting Comrade Ruthenberg is one of the authors of the minority thesis. (This is not one of thosé whispering “sec- rets” of Comrade Bedacht). As quoted above, the minority thesis agrees with the majority that the farmer-labor movement on the political field was absorbed by the LaFollette movement. And what does the minority proposes to do? The minority thesis states as follows:— “We shall mobilize all the class farmer-labor elements witht which we have contact and are now af- 'ffifated with the tte progres- sive organization for the same cam- paign against this as a liberal, third capitalist party and not a labor party and so have them raise the slogan of a ‘class farmer.labor party’ and so split with the LaFollette progressive movement.” To split away the class conscious workers, for only those will split away because they will discover that La- Folletteism is a snare for them and herd them into a class farmer-labor party. This means just as Comrade Dunne says (DAILY WORKER Dec. 5th) “That the minority want that the Workers Party create another party which will compete with it for the leadership of the masses.” The comrades of the minority who under the leadership of Pepper at- tempted to liquidate the Workers (Communist) Party by . substituting for it the hoch-potch conglomeration that was named F. F, L, P. were frustrated in their attempt by those jas constituting the present majority of the central executive committee of the party. The present attempt on the part of the Lovestone-Ruthenberg min- ority to liquidate the Workers Party and substitute for it a so-called “class ftarmer-labor, party” must be given the final and definite death-blow by itical action in the Communist sense is so abridged. The educational de- partment must get busy. In the mean time it would be advisable that the comrad: { thesis study carefully te thesis of the majority there they Bx learn that constitutes political action. minority| this sort of oppor the coming national convention. Comrades, let us be done with this “farmer-laborism” in our party once and for all, Let us unite to eradicate igal st those who party. On to a mast phe errege™ ground for the first test of strength, in spite of the mobilization of the party machinery in support of the C. E. C. majority, it was able only to se. cure the slim majority of 111 votes in the five districts in which member- ship meetings were held last Sunday, and two of these districts went on record for the minority thesis. Another factor which entered into the results last Sunday was the eleventh hour changeyin the rules cov- ering the meetings, which denied members not-attached to the city cen- tral committees in the cities in which the meetings were held the right to vote. This rule, disfranchising the party members from nearby cities, was made in order to cut down the strength of the minority, particularly in the Chicago meetings. In Chicago even the members living in Pullman, which is industrially and geograph- ically a part of Chicago, who were overwhelmingly for the minority posi- tion, were denied the right to vote in the Chicago membership meeting. The votes of the Pullman comrades alone would have changed the result in the Chicago meeting. The New York “Victory.” The vote in New York City is of great importance to our party. It is the final fact in the development of a new grouping in the party. The New York “victory” is the seal cn the con. solidation of the Foster and Lore groups in the party. The fact that Comrade Lore cast his vote for the Foster thesis and has written an article in support of that thesis, is not a matter of chance Comrade Lore can vote for the Foster thesis because thru the Foster thesis the C. E. C. majority has taken great strides toward the sectarian policy of the Lore group. The Foster-Cannon group in the party stood between the Marxian group and the Lore right wing of the party. The Communist International in its decision last May urged that it co-operate with the Ruthenberg group and carry on a struggle against the Lore group. In place of that it is now in the process of consolidation with the Lore group and the new alignment in the party will be a Foster-Lore group against the present C. HB. C. minority. Next Sunday's Meetings. ‘When the vote is in after next Sun. day’s meetings in Boston, Philadel- phia, Pittsburgh and Buffalo the pres- ent slim majority for the C. E. C. ma- jority thesis will have been converted into a majority for the minority the- sis, The retreat toward sectarianism and the Foster-Lore alliance will have been repudiated. But this vote of the members in the larger cities of the country will not settle the issue. Our party was drag ged out of the mire of sectarianism thru years of struggle. It was only thru tremendous effort that the party was taught that sectarian propaganda alone will not bufld a party which can be the leader in the struggle for the proletarian revolution. Once the party repudiated sectarianism it be. gan to make progress and grow. It is not sufficieftt that 60 per cent of the party repudiate the retreat to sec tarianism which is innate in the poli- cies of the C. E. C. majority. The work of educating the party to aclear understanding of the issues must go on, We must carry on the fight until th overwhelming bulk of our member- ship understands that a sectarian phrase cannot take the place of a Bol- shevik policy in building the Com- munist Party in this country—the Workers Party. LaFOLLETTE COMMUNISTS AT WORK IN MINNESOTA By LESLIE R. HURT OST: Somewhere, between the time following the recent national elections and the present date, one perfectly good demand for a class farmer-labor party. Its loss is causing its former owners gréat worry. If this demand is found a‘ suitable reward will be paid for its immediate return to the present majority of the Work- ers (Communist) Party. No questions will be asked. The finder, or finders, may apply direct to Comrades Foster, Cannon, or Bittelman, care of: The Workers Party, Chicago, Illinois. LaFollette Communists To The Fore The deep and mysterious circum- stances surrounding the absolute “dis- appearance” of the demand for a class farmer-labor party in this country is now occupying the attention of every thinking member of the Workers (Communist) Party and the Young Workers League. The Foster-Cannon- Bittelman group say they have dis- patched several scouting expeditions in an endeavor to locate the missing demand, but, according to their find- ings reported each day thru the dis- cussions in the DAILY WORKER, “there aint no sich animule.” Some of the majority adherents, the “LaFol- lette Communists,” advance the opin- ion that LaFollette, himself, swal- lowed up the demand. Foster, Cannon, Bittelman, Hatha- way, and others of the present C. E. C. majority of the Workers Party, ad- mit that the unemployment situation is becoming more and more intense each day,—that thousands upon thou- sands of poor farmers are giving up the lan‘, to come into the industrial centers as competitors against the city wage slaves for jobs,—and that the clild labor campaign demands im- mediate attention. But then they go on to say that there is no demand for a (lass farmer-labor party, Where We Are At? "Che theory is advanced that the on- ly solution is the separate maintain- apce of a Workers (Communist) Par- ty. Does the majority think for one minute that the workers are now ready waiting only for the call, to dash into the Communist ranks? Is it a fact that the farmers have assimil- ated so such revolutionary education that they will climb over one another in the staripede to get into the Work- ers Party? If that be true then the time is, in- deed, ripe for the overthrow of cap- italism. In listening to the arguments put forth by majority followers-in Min- neapolis, one would naturally feel that this group desired that they be set up as “all-seeing gods,”—as “virgin Com- muni They tell us that a terrible danger lurks within any movement looking to the establishment of a class farmer-labor party,—frankly admit that “LaFollette Cémmunists” are un- able to cope with the enemies of the Workers Party on the political field. Foster-Cannon Group's United Front. After their “hobnobbing” with such fakers as LaFollette, Mahoney, Cramer, Wiggins, and others of the same caliber, the majority has ar- rived at the conclusion that any at- Par-|tempt to form a class alliance of ex- ploited farmers and wage earners seam as ee shysters,—it naturally follows, so they say, that any future attempt is bound to fall down in a like manner, regard- less as to whether the movement be- gins by working “from the bottom.” They, these pure and virgin Com- munists, shout, “No compromise with the petty bourgeoisie.” Yet, what are the sentiments of others regarding small compromises with the petty bourgeoisie? Speaking in the Pres- idium of the E. C. of the C. I. on May 20, 1924, Comrade Zinoviev said, “We must support the movement for an in- dependent labor party. It is our task to direct the river into its own course. The second question is a question of the petty bourgeoisie. Comrade Mar- tynov has quoted what Lenin said many times. The petty bourgeoisie we can support. The petty bourgeoisie has no goal. The support of the Bol- sheviki consists in driving the petty bourgeoisie on, in giving its blows, in showing up its limitations to the mass- es, in going ahead of the petty bourge- oisie. That is supporting it also. As revolutionaries we can support the petty bourgeoisie in driving it for- ward.” Going on still further, he says, “Our task consists of starting an indepen- dent movement. I do not wish that the opinion should be formed in the minds of the comrades that we un- derestimate the work among the farm- ers, That was an important chapter in the work of our party and should be continued.” Frowning At the C. I. It may be that the majority group takes the same attitude regarding ad- vice from. recognized Russian com- rades as was assumed by a certain member of the Minneapolis English branch, Thursday, Dec. 18. Among other things this comrade said, in ef- fect, this, “It is my opinion that we look too much to Moscow for advice and instructions. Aren’t the Ameri- can comrades capable of judging con- ditions in their own country? Must we send cab) ms every time we think something had ought to be done here in America,—asking the Russian soviet’s permission?” In his mind no centralized authority is necessary,— no disciplinary, executive committee should be consulted in matters involy- ing the success of the Communist movement in this country. And since the majority group headed by Com- rades Foster, Cannon, and Bittelman, are. not disposed to listen to advice from members of the E. C. of the C. I, they place themselves in the same category. Who Are the Social Democarts? The minority comrades are being constantly accused of displaying s0- cial-democratic tendencies. Such a charge is ridiculously untrue,—a stup- idly ignorant assertion, Comrade Jay Lovestone, by his several articles in the DAILY WORKER, has pointed out just who the socialdemocrats in the Workers (Communist) Party really jare. His recap to date shows that on twenty-nine different counts the Fos- ter-Cannon measures and policies re ceived the vote of Lore, Speaking of Lore in the Presidium ot the E. C. of the ©. I, on May 20, 1924, Comrade Radek had this to say of the comrade; 0 16 about tl the history of the Communist Inter- national completely in the spirit of the Second-and.a-Half International.” Ra- dek further continues, “For that rea- gon I believe that the C. H.C. acted in- correctly when it regarded the lapses of Lore as a lapses of a peculiar fel- low. This is a centristic tendency in the party against which the C. BE. C. must fight. The comrades must opposy Lore in tne press, they must attack him.” The writer heard Comrade C, A. Hathaway make the remark at the Dec, 18th meeting of the Minneapolis English branch of the Workers Party that is was the minority group that had worked with and received the support of the Loreites. Hathaway sired to carry on an educational cam- paign against Loreism, but that the minority insisted on persecuting Lore. He explains that is the reason why Comrade Lore consistently votes with and supports the majority group. A very weak and unsatisfactory answer, but seemingly it is the best excuse that the majority adherents are able to put forth. A New Brand of Communism—On Wheels The good virtuous Communists com- posing the majority group loudly shout. “The Workers Party must purge itself of this dangerous ele- ment that infests the organization with its idea of a class F.-L. party.” Speaking of “dangerous elements,”— who are they? During the time when the DAILY WORKER, the only Com- munist daily in this country, printed in the English language, was appeal- ing, yes, almost begging, for the mem- bers of the party to get out and secure subscriptions for the publication—— what was happening in the city of Minneapolis? Comrades C. A. Hathaway, Carl Skogland, and B, S. Youngdabl, as well as others of the majority, were “breaking their necks” in the cam- paign put on by the Farmer-Labor Ad- vocate to build up their subscription lists. The FarmerLabor Advocate, edited jointly by Wm. Mahoney and Ralph Harmon, is published at St. Paul and represents the greatest con- glomeration of labor fakers and pol- claimed that the present majority. de- } } itical microbes ever banded together. _ The reward offered by this publica- tion. was not “a mere enlightened working class,” but a. beautiful autom- obile to be given as a prize to the person securing the greatest number of subscriptions. A capitalistic ‘‘eateh- penny” affair designed to perpetuate the “pie cards” of a couple of labor fakers. Comrade Walter Frank, who was ;|then DAILY WORKER agent, pointed out to both Comrades Hathaway and Skogland that if they would devote the time spent on building the F.-L. Advocate to securing subscriptions for the DAILY WORKER many new read- ers to our publication could be ob- tained. Both Hathaway and Skogland, however contended that.if the auto mobile was won by a party member the district would be materially ben- efitted. In conclusion,—the majority insists there shall-be no class F.-L. party in any way supported by the Workers Party. Like the S. L. P. and the proletarian party we are to our way alone. Just imagine, comrades, the thousands upon thousands of workers who will dash into our party the min- ute we abandon the idea of a class F-L. P. Just stop to’ consider the great strides the S. L. P. and P. P. have made in the matter of building up their their membership,—they, no doubt, hold the overthrow of capital- ism in the palms of their hands by virue of the fact that they have such a huge number of followers in their camps. Because the present majority were “doubled-crossed” and given the “Jud- as kiss” by fakers of the LaFollette, Cramer, and Wiggins stamp, men who had been pointed out as not being de- pendable, the idea of a class fi labor party must be thrown to four winds. The writer says, let us begin from the bottom to form such a party. By this method, by going in- to the political arena again and ex- posing who the real fakers are, we will rally around the Workers Party those worth-while farmers and work- ers who really desire to achieve the gir of capitalism, @ minority are being with about everything “ander ae sun.” The majority is so busy, how- ever, concentrating their efforts to fighting the enemy within the party, that little time can be alloted to wage a struggle against the capitalists and their lackeys. As Comrade Frank, the DAILY WORKER agent, says, “the district organizer of district number nine, Comrade C, A, Hathaway, and his immediate majority group follow- ers were so busy gathering subscrip- tions for the tionary Farmer- Labor Advocate that they couldn't be bothered about our own \ WORKER.” It remained for rade Frank, of the minority, to duct the D. W, subscription ¢ almost unaided in this city. Yes, ti minority group is a Vdshgerous ¢ ment” all right,—all right. spite of ‘the