The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 6, 1925, Page 3

Tuesday, January 6, 1925 Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate araAr THE MINORITY’S UNITED FRONT POLICY By J. W. Johnstone, The longer the party discussion con- tinues the clearer we find out just what the minority wants. Not so much from their writings but rather in the general discussions that have tak- en place. One cannot gather much farmer labor party arguments from the comedy column conducted by Lovestone and Bedacht. Nor can one see a Marxian argument for a farm- er labor party from the fact that Lore voted for a motion made by Foster. So we have to read between the lines of what the minority writes and listen earefuly to what they say in debate. A year ago our party wanted an all inclusive mass farmer-labor party, and both factions were agreed that if a farmer-labor party did not crystallize Into a national organization and run its own candidates in the 1924 presi- dential election, that the farmer-labor party movement would be ruined for many years to come. The minority says so in its thesis of last year. The minority admits the correctness of this theory, by the very fact that they have given up the hope of an all in- clusive farmer-labor party and rather willingly resign themselves to a mere “elass farmer-labor party.” What had been puzzling me for some time was just what the min- ority means by a clas farmer-labor party and the answer to this puzzle was supplied by. Comrade Minor. In the Pullman membership meet- ing Minor in his well known broken dialect said in substance, “Me want big, revolutionary, bols' eviki farm- er labor party,” and again in the Chicago membership meeting Minor in as many words said that in order to get a workers’ and farmers’ gov- ernment you have to have a “class farmer-labor party;” so there we have it. The dictatorship of the proletariat has to come thru a big, Bolshevik farmer-labor party. Just what was to become of the Workers (Communist) Party Minor failed to state, but we do not have to guess very hard what would happen to our party if the member- ship would be foolish enough to place the direction of our party policies in- to the hands of these farmer-labor party Communists. Their Last Stand. One thing is certain and that is, the minority wants a farmer-labor party. They are not all as sure as Minor just what kind of a party they want, but they want a class farmer-labor party badly, In fact, they, want it so bad that: they say definely that a united front upon the political field is impos- sible unless thru a farmer-labor party. It is very easy to understand why the leaders of the minority take this op- portunistic attitude, why they make this fundamnetal blunder. The arguments put up by the min- ority in favor of a farmer-labor party take many peculiar turns, they appeal oftener to the emotions and sentiment rather than to the intelligence of our members. One of their arguments is to point out that sonte members of the minority have served prison sen- tences for their Communist principles. Leaving two impressions, one, that it is only the minority comrades who were sent to the penitentiary, two, that serving prison sentences is a qualification for Communist leader- ship. With all due respect to those comrades, minority and majority alike, who stood the test, we refuse to ac- cept the sentimental rot, that that alone, is a qualification for Communist leadership. It that is the case, then Gene Debs would be a Communist leader, he stood the test of the peni- tentiary—but failed miserably in every other test. In reality, our party has not yet shaken of completely its underground garments, and this stupid loyalty by the minority to the farmer-labor party movement is a hang-over from our il- legal underground days, Some 18 months ago when our party actively entered, as a factor, the movement for a farmer-labor party, comrades like Bob Minor were still viewing the masses thru a periscope from the ten thousand foot level. They emerged from the cellar into the farmer-labor party movement. That is the closest they have ever got to the masses, and they resent, rather viciously at times, the attempt of the majority to push them a little nearer to the workers. It is not so very long ago that some of these same comrades were ‘of the opinion, that comrades like Foster should be relegated to the in- dustrial’ field, as the party's indus trial experts. The party’s Commu: nist purity was to be protected by our intellectual leaders, the self- styled “Marxian” group. The fear of losing their Communist virginity thru too closé a contact with the masses, is still strong altho not: talked about quite so loudly. This is still the background of the present struggle In the party. It is a strug- ) gic between pseudo intellectuals and ene profetarians in our party. ‘The minority leaders talk a great deal about more action instead of the Let me refresh the memory isfied), stated in the Chicago member- of some of our comrades on just a few of our past activities. I will deal mainly with District 8 because I am more familiar with and took part in these activities. The Record Speaks. Take the unemployed campaign of 1921 and 22. Who was it that per- fected the united front and formed the unemployed councils? “The com- rades who took the lead in that cam- paign in District were Krumbein, Swa- beck, Overgaard, Kjar, Greenwood and a host of others I could mention, but cudgel my memory as much as I may I cannot recall a single leading sup- porter of the minority who was to be found during that campaign. A cam- paign in which our party played a leading role. Where over 100 meet- ings were held in Chicago alone, where hundreds of local unions had open meetings, all of which heard, for the first time the Communist message. Unemployment. In every committee in this cam- paign we had representation. Over- gard, chairman of the speakers com- mittee. Krumbein, on the committee to look after the open union meetings Swabeck, publicity committee and so on down the line. It was a splendid campaign, despite the fact that we were more enthusiastic over the une employed, than the six million unem ployed were themselves. For the com- rades who took an active part, it was an invaluable experience, and it brot our party much closer to the workers. In the Open Shop Drive. In the open shop drive of 1921-22, who were our active actionists? Take the building trades strike of Chicago. Who were the members of our party who advocated and set up a united front of the union movement to fight the Landis award, which resulted in a protest parade of over 150,000 workers against the “open shop” Landi: award. One-half million leaflets were distributed and hundreds of union meetings addressed. Again we find the same group and we fail to locate the minority. The Railway Strike. In the big railroad shopmen’s strike we find the same situation, the minor- ity who are now demanding more ac- tion did not answer the roll call. Here was the opportunity for real action. Comrade Overgaard who was also chairman of the speakers committee did much good work in that strike and two years later in the machinist con- vention held in Detroit, was defended by delegates whom he did not know and who pointed out in defense of the Communists and members of the T. U. E. L. that these two organizations were the spirit of the shopmen’s strike, and that if the leaders of the union had done half the work done by Overgaard and his comrades the strike would have been won. The Non-Political Majority. Comrade Foster, according to the minority is merely a program writer, took an active part in allof these united fronts. In the railroad shopmen’s strike Comrades Foster and Dunng spoke to at least 100 meetings in a tour made by them from Chicago to the coast. The same story could be told about the miners and other strikes that took place during that great capitalist offensive. And what was advocated, comrades, as well as the fight against wage cuts? “Defy the injunction,” was one of the slo- gans. Of course, according to the minority, when this is done at a strike meeting or in a union hall, by some piece of magic it becomes an indus- trial and not a political act. Strange as it may seem to Minor, they also pointed out the necessity of establish- ing a workers’ and farmers’ govern- ment. a Where Were the Minority? In case it may seem to be taking an unfair advantage, by getting too close to our underground days, and that I am not giving our minority com- rades a chance to get off their over- alls after our mining experience, let me cite a recent strike—the Interna tional Ladies’ Garment Worker: strike of last year. Oh, where, Oh, where were these actionists? They will have to answer that themselves, we could not find them. Oh, yes, we found one who spoke at a strike meet- ing. Comrade Engdahl, Comrade Kruse, a loud clamorer for more action (it we ever got a flicker of action out of Kruse we would be more than sat- ship meeting that I appealed to the political committee to stop Comrade Engdahl from launching a fight against Alderman Oscar Nelson. Nothing was further from the truth and Kruse knows it. Strike meetings are always the best meetings for Communist prapoganda but. there is also such a thing as a strike psychology, which our minority has not yet discovered. What I pro- tested to the political committee about what was the kind of a fight that Eng- dahl carried on in the DAILY WORK- ER and what he said in the strike meeting. What was it? “That Nelson and Victor Olander were two big bums, two big two hundred and fifty pound slobs who would look well on the picket line.” If that is the Kruse idea of a fight against the city hall, I will oppose it. The Picket Line First. I pointed out to Engdahl that he weighed about 200 pounds himself a ARE ORR RE OE OSes SM B82 Sa ot to Hwee ant MS nce Ft A. BONE ct sis and that he had been no closer to the’ picket line than either Nelson or Olander. Who manned the picket line, who urged the defiance of the injunc- tion, who really held the strike line as long as it lasted?—-Comrades like Dora Lipshutz. The Young Workers League and party members every morning strengthened the picket line. The entire district executive commit- tee were on the picket line except Bob Minor, ‘the man of action.” Not a single leading member of the mi- nority spent two minutes on the pick- et line. The Minority United Fronts. Now let mie deal briefly with some of the united fronts set up by the minority. First, let me take the fam- ous unitel front with Fitzpatrick. In THE DAILY WORK ER a Communist Party cannot function except it has a farmer-labor party to play with, and he wants a_ united front so bad that he is willing to form it with anybody. His last united front was with James Lynch, the most reactionary labor faker in the Ameri- can labor movement. Wicks, the “Marxian” actually lined up with this faker and helped to elect him to the presidency of the Typographical Un- ion. The C. EK. C. promptly condemn- ed Wicks publicly, but Wicks has nev- er admitted that he was wrong in lining up with Lynch. In the Pater- son silk workers’ strike, where our party assumed leadership and did splendid work, Wicks, the Marxian, was the one who made the motion to stop a Communist from speaking at the strike meetings. all of my experience in the Chicago Federation of Labor we never had a united front with Fitzpatrick on any question, until the united front set up by the Pepper-Lovestone-Ruthen- berg group just prior to the July 3rd and 4th farmer-labor party confer- ence. When this was set up, we who knew Fitzpatrick, thru the district committee wrote to the C. E. C, then in control, the present minority, to be very careful in dealing with and not to place much trust in the Fitzpatrick- Nockles-Brown group. We were told to mind our own business. Who made up this Fitzpatrick united front com- mittee? Pepper, Lovestone and Ru- thenberg. Our united front in Chi- cago was with the rank and file and the result of that united front was that we brought to the July 3rd con- vention 58 delegates from Chicago alone. The Hillman United Front. Another united front set up by the minority when they controlled the C. E. C. was the Pepper-Minor-Hill- man united front, a united front that almost ruined, and did completely demoralize for a long time, our left wing group in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. We, as disciplined Communists very naturally carried out our instructions. We carried out the instruction so well, that our party members in the groups, up until) the open discussion started, thot that it was our policy and not Pepper's. ‘To us who opposed this collabora- tion with Hillman, Pepper stated, Ballam's “United Front.” Then there is Ballam who carries around the mjnority’s farmer-labor party pulmotory for the resurrection of dead farmer-labor parties. He also wants more action and less programs. Just a few days ago he submitted a program of, action in the boot and shoe unions. This was a program of complete surrender: Amalgama- tion, according to Ballam has to be discarded in the boot and shoe in- dustry and we have now to force the independent unions to merge with the Boot and Shoe Union. But accord- ing to Ballam, this surrender must not be done too quickly, we must suppose for fear that the workers in the other unions might get hep to what is being done and might refuse to surrender. Ballam does this with his eyes open, because he points out that the officials of this union are fakers, still he urges a program of surrender to these very fakers. No, Comrade Ballam, the surrender will not be made, not as long as the pres- ent majority is formulating the poli- cies of our party. By ANDREW OVERGAARD. T is significant to note that Com- rade Lovestone in his last article work cautiously and not too fast. I/ ey I could go on for hours on these minority united fronts, but just let }me cite one more. This one should | not be missed because this comrade’s argument at the Chicago membership meeting, for a farmer-labor party con- sisted of admitting that he built bar- ricades during the Russian revolution lof 1905. He, however, forgot to tell what he wanted done in the carpen- kters’ election of: 1924. Comrade Ander- son proposed a united front with the faker Brown of Peoria, and the with- drawal of our left wing candidate, Morris Rosen. He not only did this in the building trades group meeting, but presented his proposition to the T. U. E. L. national committee and it was promptly turned down. Like Wicks, he has not admitted his mis- take on this question. No Masses Except in F. L. P.? The trouble with many of our com- rades of the minority is that the swal- lowing of the farmer-labor movement, such as it was, by LaFollette left them completely isolated. They can- not see any other means of contact with the masses, as far as they are personally concerned, than thru a farmer-labor party. The only way that they can figure out is to use the farm- er-labor party slogan as an emetic to force LaFollette to disgorge this farmer-labor party. This can lead only to a third party alliance, in fact, the minority openly advocates enter- ing the C. P. P. A. which is the very heart of the LaFollette movement. | This “isolation,” felt very keenly by the minority, is not a party isolation. The great bulk of our members are industrial workers, their points of contact are too many to isolate them by the mere shattering of the farm- er-labor party movement. We of the majority want our comrades of the minority to get in real contact with the masses but we are opposed to the forming of a fake farmer-labor party which would be a fake contact. HAS THE FARMER-LABOR PARTY SWALLOWED JAY LOVESTON Soviet form of government? I think not, and I think Comrade Lovestone ean find very few phrases that he can use in the words of Marx or Len- | | Page Three : Tasks munist International on the united front and also come down to earth and find out in actual contact with the workers what the real situation is and not because they like to: man- euver around conference tables and speak in conventions, will w be able to ri.ly the workers for struggle. Our duty as a “ommunist Party is to lead the masses in the everyday strug- gles against capitalism based upon | the policy of the united front, if you berg and the rest of the farmer-la-| please, Comrade Lovestone, and thru borites in our party would do well| these struggles we shall become a to again study the thesis of the Com-|real mass Communist Party. SUPE SE Dae ‘i ACTION FOR PROGRAMS By GEORGE MAURER. to blame the Chicago district com- mittee instead of blaming themselves. Comrades Ruthenberg and Love-| stone know well thatthe majority carried on a real fight for the policy that they were against from the be- ginning, it is darned poor tactics when a certain policy proves to be wrong that we attempt to turn around and hang somebody instead of criticiz- | ing the policy itself. Comrades Lovestone and Ruthen- Jmy memory, it was four members of “Between the left wing and Hill- man, | will take Hillman for the next ten years, and maybe for two years more” and this, comrades, all because’ he thought he could use Hillman to form a_ farmer-labor party. In the elections in the Amal- in the discussion on the party theses, OMRADE BEDACHT, in one of his recent articles on the party discussion, starts out by accusing the | majority of our party of mud-slinging, and then he turns' around and throws stones, evidently forgetting that the minority is living in a glass house. Comrade Bedacht, instead of discuss- ing the point at issue, goes into a long tirade and accuses the majority of all kinds of crimes, and states that the minority is in favor of action ver- sus programs. Comrade Bedacht then pours out a story which Comrade Pep- per attempted to tell in the last con- vention of our party, which this con- vention repudiated. The same old story is repeated of accusing the com- rades in Chicago of failing the rank and file in the central labor council and the unions for the good old taker- ated. It is well to remember a few facts, since this question has been brought up again. The writer happened to be the industrial organizer of the party at the time that the struggle took Place in the unions for affiliation to the federated, The district commit- tee and the industrial department in Chicago made all the efforts in its power to organize the party to carry this struggle to a successful conclu- sion. Some thirty-two meetings of our members in the various unions were held, and in a good many unions the question was taken up, and we succeeded in a few affiliations to the federated farmer-labor party. However, in a good many of them, we were badly defeated, altho a | the majority who got up and reported at least that they had carried on a fight in their local unions but were unfortunately defeated. The mem- bers of the minority failed to report any activity as they did not have any connections with the labor move- ment. Let: us take the minority all the way thru during this whole campaign.’ Comrade Minor, Comrade Engdahl, Comrade Ruthenberg, and Comrade Lovestone, and followers, can shout fight until they are blue in their face, It is a very easy matter to fight be- hind the scenery of the battlefield in’ the party branches, but the first pre- requisite to the formation of any or- ganization based upon the trade, un- ions necessarily must be that of the organic connection of the Commun- ists within these organizations. Com- rade Wicks accuses the majority of having responsibility for the death of the Buffalo farmer-labor party, and then proceeds to tel) that he had charge of it at that time. In other werds, Comrade Wicks, the baby died in your arms. And please, do not throw that responsi- bility upon the majority. Why didn’t you do something in the American Federation of Labor, says the minority, and accuses the majority of only wanting resolutions there. Well, unfortunately that was all we could have inasmuch as we did not have any of our comrades as delegates. Comrade Semanoff has a hum-dinger, and he really rips open the bankruptcy of the minority thes- has made a new discovery, that the LaFollette swallowing has come to a standstill, and the supporters of the farmer-labor movement are ‘again be- coming visible. According to Comrade Lovestone, the farmer-labor party is in for such a policy. _ Comrade Lovestone uses the words “menshevist skepticism.” Yes, Com- rade Lovestone. Your argument smells badly of menshevism. Your skepticism of the Workers Party par- ticipating in the election campaign es by stating “The issue of the mi- nority is very clear. The minority is raising the slogan of a Leninist party, a party of action.” In other words, this is a new departure in’ Leninism, strenuous fight was put up by our comrades. We could not, however, affiliate those unions where we had no membership, and secondly, Com- rade Bedacht, Comrade Lovestone and gamated that year Hillman suggest- ed that we should elect as a left winger one of his henchmen and reviving because certain fights took place’ between the labor fakers ,in the as Communists and not as farmer-la- all the rest of the minority profess themselves extremely ignorant when they speak about the Chicago labor when the slogan of a farmer-labor party is the only slogan that can de- velop a Leninist party in America — state of Minnesota. Let me call the Comrade Minor, the actionist, ac- attention of Comrade Lovestone to borites, is a bad menshevist disease: You seem to be disappointed in the fact that our party did not show a tre- council. tually argued in favor of it. “Why,” he said, “we can at least clai him as our man.” In the last convention of the A. C. W. U., Hillman invited Minor to speak, while the C. E. C, selected Comrade Browder to organize the left wing. While Browder was or- ganizing the left wing in the con- vention to fight Hillman, Minor as every delegate knows, was one of the cheer leaders for Hillman. Even in Moscow, at the time when the Russian American Industrial Cor- poration was being formed, Hill- man objected to our party picking its quota of directors, he wanted them first submitted to him for ap- proval. He said, (and | was there) “1 have no objections to men like Bob Minor.” And in the election that has just taken place in the. A. C. W., where the news item that appeared in the DAILY WORKER on the same day that Comrade Lovestone’s discovery appeared. Our old friend, Robert Cramer, who was one of the farmer-laborites that we captured in our great campaign, made a motion to expell the Commun- ists from the farmer-labor federation of Minnesota, which was carried by a vote of 25 to 11. Those 11 being either party members or sympathiz- ers. According to all indications at this time, these elements have not on- ly been swallowed by LaFollette, but have since the A. F. of L. convention | been swallowed by the Gompers pol- icy. This, I would call, a revival with a vengeance, and I would advise Com- rade Lovestone to turn around in his chair in the research department once more and see facts as they are in- |mendous growth at once. You seem to be of the impression that, for in- stance, it is of no importance that jthe DAILY WORKER during this {election campaign has increased its circulation by 5,000 new subscribers. Is it not of the utmost importance |that the morale of our party mem- |bers has been strengthened in this campaign? Is it not important that some of our branches that were be- | ginning to die, have come to life again jand are beginning to educate them- selves in fundamental principles of Communism instead of farmer-labor- ism? Perhaps your misunderstanding of the situation is due to the fact that you have not realized the necessity of studying the conditions among our membership, but have only taken a stead of using pure abstractions. it the policy of collaboration with Hill- man was discarded, and the elections based upon a clear and definite left wing program, some of the party members deserted the party princi- ples and signed a statement in Le- vin’s office just on the eve of elec- tion repudiating the left wing pro- gram. This naturally demoralized to quite an extent the left wing. On top of this our comrades had to bat- doesn’t mean anything, as Goldberg superficial view of the situation. Comrade Lovestone, I would like to recommend to you that instead of What were the facts in that situa- tion? There were about twenty-five Communists who were delegates there, fighting among a crew of ap- proximately 300 business agents who were tails to the A. F. of L. official- dom. Another fact is that the so- called minority tailed to bring in very many affiliations themselves, for the reason that they happened not to be connected with any trade unions themselves. Comrade Bedacht, who is so ardently trying to accuse the ma- jority of gross neglect, has for a year neglected to join the Barbers’ Union, to which he is eligible. Of course, there are always technical excuses for a Marxist who swims in technical ab- stractions, This very question of the federated farmer-labor party was de- feated by only a few votes in the Barbers’ Union. It would undoubted- ly have been carried if it had been for the fighting qualities of Max Bedacht Poor Comrade Lenin ‘vould sure turn over in his grave ifthe could hear some of the wonderful interpretations the minority are using in order to aye that they follow a Leninist pol- icy. Comrade Amter is again raising points of order, after he has been rais- ing them in Moscow until Zinoviev to call him to order for the many ill- services he had rendered to the young American Communist Party. “How dare you,” says Comrade Am- ter, “drop the policy of the farmer- labor party and come out as the Workers Party in the election? The Workers Party can only become a mass party by adopting the slogan of a farmer-labor party and by estab- lishing a bond with the farmers who are at the present time in a state of strong fermentation,” Comrade Amter, however, fails to point out where this fermentation is going on among the farmers in this within it. country, and shows how little he un- situation in would say. . Comrade Lovestone seems to be very much afraid of the idea that we basing your analysis on the basis of enthusiasm, you may be able to stir up in mass meetings composed of shall rally the workers around the Workers Party in the immediate struggles, and draws the ‘fol wing conclusions—that therefore, the’ fifa jority is against the united front. Comrade Lovestone does not seem Workers Party members and sympa- thizers for the slogan “farmer-labor arty,” that you go to a union meet- ing, for example, in one of the most progressive ones at this time, and to conceive of the idea that the unit- ed front can be established from be- low. His conception of the united front seems to be that of maneuver- ing in conferences regardless of the mass sentiment below. I am afraid that if we adopt the policy of the mi- nority, that we shall have a greater number of disappointed Communists tle with Levin’s sluggers at the poll- ing places, some of them being slug- ged. What did Bob Minor do under these circumstances? He Introduced a motion in the district executive meeting asking the C. E. C. to restate the party policies in the Here, for the first time, since the forming of the Pepper-Minor-Hillman united front, our party policy in the Amalgamated was very clearly under- stood. So clear in fact, that the weak members of our party were afraid to endorse it, and actually repudiated it rather than enter the fight against the Hillman-Levin ma- chine. The only interpretation that can be put on Minor’s motion, was that he prefered the old Hillman al- liance to a fighting program of ac- The United Front in the Printers’ Union. Take another one of our minority the king pin Marxian of them all, If you don’t believe this, ask him, Comrade Wicks, another ope who demands more action, He says that the farmer-labor party is as in- as the stars in the heaven. ys that the majority's op- position to the forming of a farmer- labor party at this time, ig just as futile as the bull issued by the pope against the appearance of Haley's comet. Well, the pope is not the only one, who has made a bull; Wicks has made several of them, Wicks wants a farmer-labor party at any costs, in fact he thinks that than we have already made thru that policy. Now let us ask you about the united front, and please let us know whether or not you have lost confi- dence in the ability of the Workers Party to rally the masses around it- self in the immediate struggles, or must all these problems be taken care of by the farmer-labor party? Look- ing over the DAILY WORKER again, we find another story of Communist activity in Boston, where our com- rades are leading the unemployed workers in demonstrations before the city council. Is that political action or not, Comrade Lovestone? It is not necessary to mention oth- er united front campaigns the party carried on under its own name, Must we, without masses moving in that di- rection, set up fake labor parti based upon gymnastic organizations, literary clubs, self-advancement clubs and parlor Bolshevik associations—or- ganizations that do not play any part in American politics—-and that party, or abortion of a party, shall then take the lead in and take over the func- tions in ‘the immediate struggles of the workers, while the Workers Par; ty shall rest on the shelf and only come out at times shouting for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the select two subjects. For example, a united front with the Workers Party to organize a fight against injunctions, a united front to organize the unorganized, or suggest they participate in another farmer- labor convention, I'd, like to see where you get the most enthusiasm. { am afraid they'll tell you that they have passed about 100 labor party resolutions and they are sick and tired of it at this time, but they woud like to unite with the Workers Party to fight injunctions or against the unemployment, etc. Shall we then tell them that we can’t fight injunc- tions because we have no farmer-la- bor party or shall we tell them that we have a Communist Party which is capable to fight their battles? And then please, Comrades Ruth- enberg and Lovestone, do not throw sectarianism against us. Commun- ists who participate in the everyday struggle of the masses, who are lead- ers of strikes who are fighting against the bureaucracy in the trade unions will not so easily be let into sectarian- ism as those who shout from the na- tional office dictaphones and hurl proclamations at the workers like Comrades Lovestone and Ruthenberg like to do. The minority also tries the old stunt of theirs in accusing the ma- jority of not trying to organize the F. F. L, P. altho Comrade Ruthen- berg in the last convention explained the truth laid in between and this matter was refuted by the convention as beivg nothing short of an attempt of the then majority, now minority Another fact— when the question was up in one of the Machinists’ Un- ions, a very prominent member and leader in one of our federations, who also shouts fight, failed to show up when the question came up. This same comrade, who still shouts fight, also failed to show up when the La- Follette question was fought out in his union, Comrade Ruthenberg, who likes to form a farmer-labor party by father- ly smiles, would do well to remember the discussion that took place in his own branch upon his own request after the call had been sent out for the St. Paul convention. He then re- quested that the branch members re- port as to what they had done in re- derstands the present America. He shows as little concep- tion of the American situation as he did when he was author of the fam- ous “Ford-Dubner” theses. I would Propose to ‘relegate Comrade Amter to a position where he is given the task of writing some long book, or go back to his profession as a music teacher, instead of attempting to lead | the Communist movement of America into the abyss of opportunism. Yes, Comrade Bedacht, Comrade Lovestone, Comrade Ruthenberg, Comrade Semanoff, Comrade Wicks, and Comrade Amter, action we want as against programs. The majority theses points the road to action which leads to the dic- gard to the farmer-labor party. To|tatorship of the proletariat. _ NEW YORK WORKERS’ SCHOOL Class in “A B C of Communism” at Workers’ School. In response to the demand for more classes in the “A B C of Commun- \ ism,” the Workers’ School in New York City now offers such a course at its own headquarters, 208 E. 12th street. ‘ The classes will be conducted by Comrade J. C. Oblans, for many years an active party worker, and will meet every Thursday night, from 8 to 10 i] p.m I The first session will be held Thursday. Jan. 8. Comrades in lower Man- hattan particularly are urged to register and te get sympathizers also to t enroll. f a . b Educational Directors Meet Monday, Jan. 19. A special meeting of branch educational directors will be held on Mon- day, Jan. 19, at the headquarters of the Workers’ School, 208 E. 12th street, New York City. at 8 p. m. Branches which have not yet elected their educational director should do so at once, and send name and address to the secretary of the Workers’ School. All educational directors should take careful note of the date, Jan. 19, is and make no other arrangements for that evening. ‘