The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 5, 1925, Page 4

Page Four THE DAILY WORKER Monday, January 5, 1925 Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks Our Wayward Majority Shouts “Stop Thief” FARMER-LABORISM By BARNEY MASS. N going over carefully the “cate chism” conducted jointly by Com- rades Lovestone and Bedacht, in the Dec. 20 issue of the DAILY WORK- ER, I was particularly interested in their strenuous efforts to overwhelm the majority by showing the tremen- dous sentiment for a farmer-labor party in this country. They began by stating “Now for some outstanding facts showing the strong undercurrent of sentiment for the building of an independent politi- cal party—in the ranks of the mass- es.” No. 2, under the question five, they quote: “In the conference for progressive political action of Massa- chusetts, the minority demand for a farmer-labor party as against a fraud- ulent liberal third capitalist party was strong and clear cut. Had our cen- tral executive committee given the party members in Massachusetts proper guidance instead of an over- dose of phrases in a tape-worn mani- festo, the party could have struck an effective blow against LaFollette and could have established our lead- ership amongst an increasea mass of workers in the Bay State.” One in Frisco would imagine from this product of Communist research that the textile workers (and inci- dentally there were no textile work- ers present) wanted a class farmer- labor party even more strongly than the northwestern farmers in the pea- sant revolt of 1923. But not one who was on the spect as I happened to be. The implications of the minority are false. The facts are as follows; dissociated from any blind faith in telepathic catechisms. The committee of progressive poli tical action recently held a confer- ence in Boston. To this conference some comrades succeeded to get elect- ed from sympathetic fraternal organ- izations, and one or two progressive locals of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. At a meeting of the pafty delegates, the comrades wanted to know just what our proced- ure would be in the committee for progressive political action? Com. rade Ballam suddenly suffered a lapse of memory as to what the policy of our party was in a situation of this kind, and sent a telegram to the na- tional office asking for this informa- IN MASSACHUSETTS tion. Comrade Ballam was quite innocent of the fact that there is only one pol- icy which is that of the C. EB. C. ex- pressed by a majority vote. He had to be reminded of this elemental point by a telegram froni the central executive committee, that the C. E. C. statement was the policy of the party. Now in a more favorable po- sition to his interests, he could have told under-studies just what the pol- licy of the party was. As eyeryone expected, (those who understood the structure of a Communist organiza- tion) in accordance with the election statement of the central committee, the instructions were against pene- tration of the third party. Then Com- rade Ballam, overcome by, this “un- usual” instruction of the C. B. C., made insinuations about distuptive tactics. He wanted to create the im- pression to the comrades that the C. E. C. was out to kill even labor party sentiment where it existed in mass character. Who wanted a labor party? Some party members of the minority, (in this particular situation). They work- ed hard in our familiar sympathetic organizations to get such a resolution passed. The only union to my knowl- edge, was g local of the A. C. W. of A., after our members fought to put it over. Somehow or another, Ballam was unable to attend personally such a responsible, and delicate affair. (C. P. P. A. conference). It reminds one of the generalship of Wicks in Minne- sota who was everywhere, but where he should be. The whole affair ended up by the few comrades who were delegates to this conference splitting away in a disorderly manner. Some comrades who were elected by frat- ernal sympathetic organizations never showed up to the conference. WHERE IS THE SENTIMENT FOR A FARM- ER-LABOR PARTY IN MASSACHU- SETTS? If the other examples “of strong undercurrent of sentiment for the building of an independent political party of the worker and exploited farmer—a class farmer-labor party— in the ranks of the mass” are as truth- ful as the one in Massachusetts, then the policy of the minority rests on quicksand. THE C. E.C.IS CORRECT By. HEINZ SCHROETER. E Workers Party is now in a lively discussion over the C. E. C. (majority) thesis on the immediate tasks of our party. Shall we raise the slogan of a (class) farmer-labor party or not? The majority say “no” and the minority say “yes.” What are the conditions that justify the use of a farmer-labor slogan? Are the conditions in existence or not? I say the conditions are not in exist- ence, politically. Even the minority thesis states that“ . . the La- Follette movement had developed in definite form -” and established a its leadership over the far- mer-labor forces which stood for a class party . .” Then will the slogan of a farmer-labor party auto- matically separate the farmer-labor forces from the LaFollette illusions? The minority thesis states that it will. “The political alliance of the trades *union bureaucracy with the petty- bourgeoisie will make the slogan of a farmerlabor party an entering wedge between the working masses and their treacherous leaders.” Note that the slogan will make “ . - an entering wedge . . .” and destroy the LaFollette illusion in the work- ing masses. Let Comrades Love- Ruthenberg, stone, Bedacht, Engdahl and Gitlow go among the working masses and preach their gospel and see how much of a following they will get. It is true that they will get a few who will follow them (not taking into con- sideration of the farmer-laborites in our party). These few who have ar- rived at such a political maturity, as to recognize that the LaFollette move- ment is a petty-bourgeois movement, also recognize the existence of class- es. Then will Ruthenberg & Co. try to build up a class farmer-labor par- ty, with these elements, in competi- tion with our party? It is true that the progressive de- cline of capitalism will cause a more acute separation of the workers with the petty-bourgeoisie even in the La- Follette movement, but there are no jindications, in the LaFollette move- ment, at present or in the immediate future that any such class conflicts will arise because LaFollette did not have the chance to show his betrayal to the working class. His repudia- tion of the June 17 farmer-labor con- vention was not sufficient to create a separate mass movement. It 1s only after the LaFollette move- ment shows itself to the working class as a middle class movement will the workers form a separate mass movement and not before. THE RIGHT TO LEADERSHIP; WHAT ISA By MORRIS CHILOFSKY. Communist Party is part of the working class, namely: its most advanced, intelligent, self-sacri- ficing, and therefore, most revolution- ary part. The Communist Party dif- fers from the general mass of the workers in that it takes a general view of the whole historical march of the working class, and at all turns and events it defends the interests of the working class and is the leader of the working class. The Communist Party is the organ- ized political lever by means of which the more advanced part of the work- ing class leads all the proletarian and semi-proletarian mass. working class, what the head is to the body. If separated, they cease to function, _ The class war is not a casual epi- sode. It is war as any other war. _ The Communist Party is the general staff which guides and pushes forward the proletarian battalions in its sirug- gle against capitalism. Strategy and Tactics. In war we lay out strategic plans and tactics which are valid for the whole period of war, or only for a part of that period. The most im- portant task of strategy is to ascer- tain that main line to be followed by the working class movement, the Mne most advantages for enabling the A ; COMMUNIST PARTY? proletariat to strike its enemy the main blow required for the attainment of certain aims, established by the program. To accelerate or retard the move~ ment, to facilitate or hinder it—this is the sphere of tactics and political strategy. Tactics are a part of strategy and subordinate to it. Tactics are not occupied with the war as a whole, but with its separate episodes and battles. At no time must tactics en- danger our strategic plan. Tactics must not look only to the temporary interests of the moment; they mist not desert the solid ground and build castles in the air—tactics must adapt themselves to the tasks and possibili- ties of strategy. The views set forth above are not original; they belong to Comrade Len- in and Stalin. It is surprising to note that comrades of the minority who have in the past had reputations as Marxists, should completely for- get Lenin, the strategist. It is also surprising to note what little atten- tion these comrades attach to slogans and directions, Speaking of slogans, Comrade Stalin says: “In the sphere of poli- tics slogans are of great import ance, for we deal with tens and hundreds of millions of human be- ings, with manifold demands. “The slogan is the concentrated and clear formulation of the imme- diate or ultimate aims of the gle, and is issued by tne | groups—in the case of the prole- tariat by Its party.” Comrade Stalin says further. “To confuse slogans with directions, or slogans of agitation with slogans of action Is just as dangerous as pre- mature or too retarded: action, which can become catastrophic. “Slogans must be of such a na- ture so as to rally masses of work- ers. It sometimes becomes neces- sary to alter or withdraw slogans, when they cease to have a dynamic effect upon the movement of the masses. Sometimes to postpone them to a more favorable time.” Strategy and Tactics of Our Party Let us see what has been our main strategic aim? It is this: To develop independent political action of the working masses under the leadership of the Workers (Com- munist) Party. This is still our main strategic aim only our tactical means must be changed, because of the changed poli- tical situation. The trouble with the comrades of the minority is this: They have con- fused our tactical means with our strategic aim. To them the farmer- labor party becomes an end instead of a means to an end. At a certain period under given conditions our farmer-labor party policy was.correct but not now. Political Action and the United Front To some.comrades of the minority the farmer-labor party is the all-inclu- sive phase of political action. To them the united front can only be ap- plied thru a farmer-labor party. This conception is wrong and is due, mainly, to a misunderstanding of Communist political activity and also to the misunderstanding of the united front tactic. Political action for the Commun- ists does not merely manifest itself in elections or in parliament and neither ‘is it limited to a farmer-labor party. Mass demonstrations against the state is political action, a fight against the injunction is political ac- tion. It is sometimes impossible dur- ing a struggle to distinguish between economic action and political action or vice versa. If we Communists are in the work shops organized into nucleus, we will be ready to lead and sharpen all political action. To believe that political action is only limited to a farmer-labor party is absurd. ‘ In every argument put forth by the minority they claim that to abandon the F. L. P. policy is to don the united front. To listen the way these comrades talk is almost to be- lieve that the Comintern adopted the united front tactics solely for the Unit. ed States. It is strange that in every country the Communists have applied the united front. We are not the only ones and they did it not thru a farmer-labor party, buton the basis of the daily struggles of the working masses, e. i., shop committees, eight- hour day, ete. The suropean comrades in apply- ing the united front did it with the Communist Party as the leader under its own banner. Not handing it over to a party which can never be any- thing else but a reformist party. It spite of the fact that Comrade Ruth- enberg attaches the word “class” to it. Liquidation. . The Communist International has said that there can be only one Com- munist Party in any country. The Workers (Communist) Party is cap- able of developing into a mass Com- munist Party. It needs no other name. To hand over virtu.s to a re- formist party which rightly belongs to a Communist Party, is not Com- munist action. Comrade J. Powell in attacking ths T U. E. L. program, says “The new T. U. E. L. program has plenty of demands all the way from amalgama- tion to nationalization to abolition of the K. K. K. Yet it entirely over- looks the greatest need of the work- ing class of this country; the neces- sity of a political party.” Evidently it seems that Comrade Powell has forgotten that ‘there is a political party of the workers in this country. He has forgotten the teach- ings of Marx and the Comintern that only a Communist Party is a political party of the working class. He also does not know that the .left wing in the trade unions in this country has been following the leadership of the Workers (Communist) Party and are ready to do so in the future. But no! Comrade Powell wants the work- ers to follow a real . . . political party, a farmer-labor party. Comrade Powell is not the only disappointed Communist, here we have Comrade Sylvan A. Pollock, who says no one can find fault with that part of the statement which calls for the strengthening and development of the party, but when it is claimed that it must be at the expense of the unit- ed front tactics of the farmer-labor party, I must disagree, This comrade is ready to give up his own party for the sake of the poor little desert- ed and homeless F. L. P., the orphan, that no one wants at present, not even the working masses, Now, let us see what is Comrade Ruthenberg's position. In the De- cember number “Workers’ Monthly” Comrade Ruthenberg admits at least partly that a broad inclusive farmer- labor party is not possible at present, ' By HERBERT BENJAMIN. ‘§{KJOTHING has contributed so much to develop our party from a sectarian group to a recogniz- ed political force in the life of the la- bor movement of this country than our maneuvers in relation to the farmer-labor party.. It is thru this campaign that we have established our leadership and prestige among the masses of workers and farmers. The campaign for the farmer-labor party must be continued as a major campaign of our party in the future. The above is a summary of a state- ment published by our C. E. C. some- time last August. It was part of the program of immediate work which was handed to us by our present ma- jority of the C, E. C. This part at least must have had the unanimous indorsement of the C. EB. C.. (Per- haps Lore did not indorse it, but then there are some doubts even in the Cc. I. as to whether he belongs on the C. E. C.) I venture to say that at the time this statement was written, not a single active member of our party could have been found thruout the country who would take issue on the question. Every member of our party |. felt confident that our farmer-labor party campaign was a correct esti- mation of the situation in the United States. Altho I traveled over a con- siderable part of the country in the interim, I did not find a single com- rade anywhere who thought that we were liquidating the W. P., that we were building a reformist party; that we were opportunists, or any other one of the many terrible’ things that an advocate for this policy is called today. What produced the miracu- lous change? If we study carefully the thesis of the majority and the articles which are written by its supporters, we learn that this change results from the fact that the majority never un- derstood the purpose of the F. L. P. campaign, feels unable to conduct it towards its proper objective, and at- tributed their failings to others. The majority cannot openly deny that we gained from the F. L. P. cam- paign those advantages which they claimed for it. They are now very anxious to go in a round about way and disparage our gains, but they dare not deny that what they wrote in August was untrue. That they are not very enthusiastic about the pol- icy is to put it mildly. The reason for this is to me very apparent. The | reason is that in the year 1924 we did not gain anything thru the F. L. P. campaign. The advantages gained for our party thru the ¥. L. P, cam- paign were gained up to the time when the present C. E. C. assumed the members to justify their abandon- ment of the F. L. P. campaign, so we suddenly diseover that we are much better off if we don’t bother with it. The members of the majority sud- denly made the discovery that we were organizing a rival to the Work- ers Party. That it is non-Communist- ic to engage in building a “reform- istic” movement and that we must build the Workers Party. If it were not, that I know that Comrade Cannon is one of the leaders of the present majority, if it were not for the fact that I have had previous experience with this comrade’s me- thod of pre-convention polemi, I would be as amazed as are many members of our party at present, at the questionable methods used to in- duce our members to abandon a ma- jor policy and fundamental concept of Communism. Knowing this com- rade as I do, I am not amazed. I am simply more determined than ever to help remove such comrades from positions of responsibility. To brand a policy approved by the Comintern and ratified by two party conventions as non-Communistic. To have a comrade who according to the Comintern, “failed to maintain a Com- munist position” stigmatize the very comrades who fought against his devi- ations, as non-Communists, is carry- ing things altogether too far. To have comrades.adopt the policy of one who has been declared by the Cc. I. to be a left wing social-demo- crat, form an alliance with him, and attempt to prove that the group op- posing them is a right wing group, is depending too much on the gullibility of the membership. To declare that we must abandon the farmer-labor party campaign be- cause there is no sentiment for it among the masses, and then propose as a substitute labor congresses, shows that the proponents have a very rich imagination, but are by no means practical. The present majority have without doubt, done great injury to our party. They have already delayed consider- able activity in furtherance of our major campaign. They have cast re- flections upon the integrity of many of our most able and trusted com- rades. But they cannot succeed in covering up their errors by. shouting “Stop Thief!” The party convention and the Com- intern will decide who the real li- quidators, right wingers, opportunists and non-Communists are. By ISRAEL AMTER. EAR COMRADE FOSTER:—You and your group in the party main- tain that you represent the Bolshevik section of the party. You also main- tain that you are the majority in the party. It is true that, being the ma- jority of the C. E. C., you have the machinery of the party in your hands. You contend further that your group contains the active trade unionists in the party. Let us look into the matter. Who support you in your position on the farmer-labor party slogan—despite the decision of the Communist Inter. national? 1. Elements in the German Feder- ation who follow the lead of Com- rade Lore—a tendency that the Com- munist International branded as be- ing of the Two-and-a-Half Internation- al; elements stigmatized as social- democratic within the Workers Party. 2. The petty-bourgeois elements in the Jewish Federation, most of whom are followers of Comrade Lore. 3. The Workers’ Council group, with few exceptions, who for more than two years after the formation of the Communist Party of America, refused to accept the Communist po- sition, and one of the leading mem- bers of which declared to me in Mos- cow that he was just becoming a Communist. leadership of our party and not since then. Because the present majority of the C. E. C. does not understand how to apply the campaign to the advantage of our party. This tho would be a poor reason to offer to but can’t we at least use the slogan for a “class” F. L. P.? The only reason for the.use of the slogan at present, that Comrade Ruthenberg can give is that in view of the fact that the class struggle is becoming more intensified; therefore, let’s tell the workers to form a “class” F. L. P. Comrade Ruthenberg is not con- cerned with the illusion in that slogan, or the effect of that slogan, neither does he recognize the role or pos- sibility of a F. L. P., but he wants one at any cost or at least the slogan. Comrade Lovestone, the leader of the minority, is very good at figures and percentage and in his research to justify a F. L, P. or the F. L. P. tactic his, reason ig that Magnus Johnson re- ceived more votes in Minnesota than LaFollette. Very good! How will Comrade Lovestone explain that one of our comrades in Massachusetts re- ceived more votes than Foster? The above reason is sapposed to prove the potency of continuing the F. L, P, tactic. Now we come to the necessity of a F. L. P. and Comrade Lovestone is of the same opinion as the other disappointed Communists in the minority: that the Workers (Com- munist) Party is not the political lever of the proletariat in this country, but the F. L. P. is. Yes, the Comintern is wrong. The minority has no confidence in the Workers (Communist) Party. They are ready to hand the fole of our party, the Communist Party, to the F. L, P. This is outright liquida- tion. This also proves that some of our comrades do jnot understand the flexibility of unist strategy and tactics. To them a slogan or tactic once adopted must stand regardless of the objective or subjective condi- tions. _ If we claimtobe Marxian dilectic- jans then we must subscribe to this. “The practice of the class struggle is fertilized by theory and in its turn becomes the fruitful soil for theo- retical study.” The tactic of the majority of the C. B. ©. is correct in the light of con- ditions and experience, and the com- tades who believe that the role of leadership of the proletariat belongs to a revolutionary Communist Party, should help break the “farmerlabor party” fetishism in our party. * 4. The members of the Finnish Federation who follow the lead of Comrade Burman, who recently sent a dastardly- letter to the branches of the Finnigh Federation, containing distortions and bare-faced lies as to the position of the minority, the char- acter of the minority members of the central executive committee and th actions of the executive secretary of the party. 5. The syndicalistically inclined members of the Workers Party, who are disposed to stress the industrial work of the party, as industrial work, and to minimize the importance of the Political work. ‘This was especially notable in the Greek Federation branch in New York, many members of which receiyed a letter from the manager of the Greek paper, stating that he is for Foster because Foster stands for industrial work and not so much for political work. 6. The new members of our party, who have just come from the social- ist party and do not understand the maneuvers of a Communist Party. This is comprehensible, since they have abandoned the S. P. because of its petty-bourgeois character and its efforts to become an integral part of the LaFollette movement. With their “purist” tendencies, they are afraid to venture into the struggle for the control and leadership of the mass- es. 4 Are these the Bolshevik elements in the Workers Party, Comrade Foster? Are these comrades, sincere as they may be, considered by the Communist International as the real Communist core of the Workers Party? .ou were in Moscow, Comrade Foster, and you know what the presidium of the Lom- munist International said of these elements. You have declared and still declare that your group in the party contains the active trade unionists. It is true that the group directing the national work of the T. U. E. L. is with you. Examine the groups and the individ- ual comrades doing the active work in the districts and locals, and you will find that they do not agree with you—either on your abnegation of the farmer-labor slogan or on the manner in which you conduct the industrial work, There is deep concern about the methods that you employ, which is considered a complete perversion of the position of the Red Internation- al of Labor Unions. There is a group, followers of Com- rade Lore, whom you have entrusted with the conduct of the industrial work both in New York City and in the eastern district. These comrades support you in your farmer-labor pol- icy, but they carry out the industrial -work so opportunistically that you A OPEN LETTER TO COMRADE FOSTER have criticized them in the majority thesis, without daring to mention them by name. And your criticism is correct, when Comrade Jampolsky, in- dustrial organizer of New York, de- clares that we “do not want a united front with the fakers in the Central Trades and Labor Council” and that “it is not so important for our com- rades to take the floor in the C. T. L. c.,” then he reveals complete ignor- ance of one aspect of our industrial work. When Comrade Zimmerman, industrial organizer for the eastern districts, declares that we can take the floor at a central body only when we are strong, then he demonstrates that he has not the courage of a Com- munist. You are justly ashamed of this group, Comrade Foster, but this is the type of comrades who are sup- porting your political policy and rep- resent you in the industrial work. But the local and district leaders, and the local comrades who are do- ing the active, militant work among the masses, do not side with you. They are in rebellion against your methods of eternally negotiating with the local and national leadership of the unions, of considering it Commun- ist work merely to get resolutions put across and to capture offices in the unions. They consider Communist work the building up of our leader- ship among the rank and file of put- ting the T. U. E. L. on a firm organ- izational basis, and thus forming the only foundation for our Communist activity. The overwhelming majority of the comrades who helped to form the Communist movement and Commun- ist Party in the United States, who have had a training in Communist tactics and strategy and the comrades who do the active industrial work, do not side with you, Comrade Foster, they are with the minority. This letter is merely to put you right, Comrade Foster—and to call your attention to a few facts that aré pertinent.and very striking. As long as the American question fs to come before the Communist Interna- tional once more, it will be good also that the Communist International should know the line-up in the Ameri- can party and recognize that it is not merely a struggle that is taking place in the C. EB. C. of the party, but a struggle going on thruout the party, owing to the divergence of opinion, lus to what constitutes Communist work on the political and industrial fields. We should like to hear your side, Comrade Foster. We of the minority stand by the above, fraternally yours, Israel Amter. English Branch of Washington, D.C., Is For Majority Thesis WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 1. (By Mail.)\—The English Branch of the Workers Party discussed the party task on Dec. 29 and continued the discussion January 1. At the conclu- sion a vote was taken, resulting in 8 votes for the C. B. C. majority thesis and 6 votes for the thesis of the minority. Several members did not vote. The leadérs of the minority were Comrades Irvine and Powell, whil« Comrade MacIntosh led for the majori- ty. A general discussion followed the chief speakers. Yonkers Hungarian Branch Is Unanimous For Majority Thesis At the last meeting, held on Dec. 30, the Younkers Hungarian Branch No. 16 discussed the C. E. C. and also the minority theses and decided un- animously 13 to 0 in favor of the majority thesis. Subscribe for “Your Daily,” Remember These Dates. 'HE entire New York organiza- tion is expected to co-operate in the following affairs. All affillat- ed and sympathetic organizations are requested not to arrange con- flicting dates. Jan. 11, Sunday afternoon and evening, DAILY WORKER Jubilee, New Star Casino. - Feb. 1, Sunday afternoon, Lenin Memorial, Madison Square Garden. Feb. 11-14, Defense Bazaar, The Lyceum, 65th street, March 15, Sunday afternoon and evening, Press Pageant and Paris Commune Celebration, Madison Square Garden. CENTRAL BUREAU OF ESTHONIAN SECTION IS WITH THE MINORITY The Central Bureau of the Esthonian section of the Workers (Commun- ist) Party, at its meeting held on Dec. 23, 1924, after discussing the theses presénted by the majority and the minority of the Central mittee, adopted the following resolution: pascutite Com- The Esthonian Bureau of the Workers (Communist) Party agrees with the minority theses of the C. E. C., which aims at the unity of the workers and por farmers in a political party, under the slogan of a “farmer-labor party.” ) The reasons that impelled the Esthonian Bureau to adopt the minor- ity theses are as follows: 1, In our opinion, it is necessary to carry on a campaign under the slogan ot a “farmer-labor party.” We un- derstand that if’we organize such a party, it will be the best means of bringing the organized and the unor ganized workers and the poor farmers into political action. This will increa- se their class consciousness and also make it possible later to draw the best elements into the Workers (Com- munist) Party. The winning over of these revolutionary elements by the Workers (Communist) Party will help to make the party a strong and well erystalized party capable of conducting the class struggle in the United States; rian revolution can lead the workers and poor farmers to take the power into their hands and establish the tarian ditatorship. 2, The farmer-labor party, there- re, is an organization in which the workers and poor farmers will be united in one party, so as to help the class struggle. Comrade Lenin, the leader of the world revolution, said that “if should not possible for us to win over the its, the Rus- sian revolution will lost.” The main function of the Russian Com- munist Party now is “to unite the city with the village,” which means “to unite the workers with the farmers.” This kind of work must be begun in the Workers (Communist) Party so that the day of the proletarian revo- lution will not find the American farmers unprepared, 3. The minority theses, therefore, comply with the requirements of the Communist International and also a party that at the time of the proleta- with the program of the Workers (Communist) Party. . We do not share the opinion of the majority of the C. E. ©, to the fffect that LaFollettism killed the farmer- labor movement, as stated in the majority thesis that “The farmer labor party is dead.” We kelieve that this question is alive today and cannot be “dead.” We believe that the major- ity of the C. B. C., instead of encou- raging the use of the slogan of a farmer-labor party, in their work are killing it. We maintain that the majority of the C. E. C., has not fulfilled or car- ried out: a) The program adopted at the last national convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, declared that the C. B. C. of the Workers (Communist) Party shall use all of its energy to organize a farmer-labor party. b) The majority of the C. B. ©., has ignored the twice expressed demand of the Executive Committee of the Com. munist International to form a farme er-Labor Party, _ The Esthonian Bureau approves the theses of the minority of the ©. B. C., as the most practical theses by which we may form a strong united front in the class struggle against capitalism, . The Esthonian Bureau directs every Esthonian branch of the Workers (Communist) Party carefully to dis- cuss the theses of the majority and the minority of the C. B. C., so that every members of the Hsthonian branches of the Workers (Communist). Party may take a correct position on the party policy. / ‘This /reso.ution was adopted by @ vote of six against one, A, Kobet Member of the Esthonian Bureau of the Workers (Communist) Party, | a ,