The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 6, 1925, Page 4

'd Page Four f—__—___{ Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks UNANIMOUS FOR MINORITY THESIS The Lettish Branch, Chicago. By F. Zelms, Secretary, '® had the privilege to hear the part issues discussed by two outstanding personalities in our party, namely, Comrade W. Z. Foster, of the majority group, and Comrade C. B. Ruthenberg, of the majority group of the central executive committee be- fore our branch, on Friday evening, Dec, 12. with 56 members present. Foster Draws Pessimistic Picture. Comrade Foster plunged right into the farmer-labor party issue and drew a very pessimistic and defeatist pie- ture of our activities in connection with the farmer-labor movement in the past, declaring: “The federated farmer-labor party was sucking the life blood of the Workers Party,” and threw in the deliberately falsified figures of Joseph Manley. to say that it cost the Workers Party a fortune to “organize the many fake farmer- labor parties,” as if the comrades who heard him say that did not know what the party really did and of the under- lying motives of doing so during the farmer-labor party campaign. Foster maintained that our party must have “the guts to do as the so- socialist labor party and the socialist party did: to go before the labor unions and speak of their party,” as if the Lettish comrades, all of whom were at one time or another members of the socialist labor party and social- ist party, were to draw a moral lesson from the history of the socialist labor party and socialist party. On the con- trary, to many of them, their exper- ience with the‘ socialist labor party and the socialist party—the morale of it—the sectarianism, the fear from the masses of workers, the virgin “purity” of Marxism, the dual union- ism, etc.. was sufficient proof that Foster was expounding sectarianism and not a Bolshevik conception of Communist tactics. The Other United Fronts. Other united front tactics of the party were enumerated by Foster, with exaggerated emphasis on the amalgamation movement, the cam- paign for the protection of the foreign born and similar activities of our party, while our campaigns in connec- tion with the farmer-labor movement came in for ridicule, as if Foster would have been enthused by the con- tribution of Comrade Martin Abern when he tried to make the world believe what, a darned fool he was for doing what be did. And what/was said-in this connec- tion, the Lettish comrades could not help think that Comrade Foster pre- sumed they had been in Latvia, fight- ing the bloodthirsty Latvian govern- ment all this time, away from this continent and therefore did not know anything about amalgamation and other “successes” of that kind which our party experienced while partici- pating in the everyday struggles of the workers of this country. Comrade Foster did not realize that by sneering at some of our attempts on the politi- cal field in connectjon with the farmer- labor policy of our party, and by exaggerating over and over again our activities on the industrial field, particularly the amalgamation move- ment—he led the comrades to suspect him of syndicalist tendencies, of being a graduate of a syndicalist school of thought, but not as a leader of a growing Communist Party. The sum total of Comrade Foster's argument in the discussion before the Lettish comrades that night was: “Thank God, the farmer-labor move- ment is dead and buried; let it rest in peace. We must look out for it—it will liquidate our party—the Workers Party” But if it was not for the poorly lighted hall that night, Comrade Foster would have seen many of the Lettish comrades smiling. And why? Simply because Comrade Foster re- minded them of De Leon, once their idol, who convinced them for a time that; “The trade unions are no good —they are bankrupt, and, therefore. leave them alone. (Start your own industrial unions, etc.).” In short, Comrade Foster presented a narrow, pessimistic, syndicalist and defeatist conception of the united front tactics of our party in connection with the farmer-labor party movement, Ruthenberg Speaks for Minority. It did not take long for Comrade Ruthenberg to convince the comrades that our participation in the farmer- labor united front campaigns, regard- less of the many defects and mistakes, was a tremendous, boost for our party, the Workers (Communist) Party; that nothing {fi the whole history of our -party, not any other single factor, has contributed so much to popularize and consequently to increase the prestige, influence, and leadership of our party. before large masses of the workers and poor farmers in this country as “our campaign for a mass, class farmer- labor party. “Our task, the road we have to travel,” pointed out Ruthenberg. “is well defined by the Communist Inter- national. It is up to us to carry it out. Here is what it declares: ‘The first task of the Workers Party is to become a mass Communist Party of workers. It can fulfill this task only by most actively participating in the establishment of a labor party which will embrace all elements of the work- ing ig and by establishing a bond q ? ' with the farmers who are at present in a state of strong fermentation. The two independent tasks, the task of building around the Communist Party a broad, class labor party, and of establishing a bond between a labor party and the poorest elements of farmers, have developed in the United States. thanks to the peculiarities of historical evolution, as one problem. namely, the building of a common party of workers and exploited farm- ers.’” In other words. Comrade Ruthen- berg hit the ball so hard and fast that he “walked home” to make a “home run.” He added that: “Comrade Foster and with him the majority group of the central executive com- mittee does not analyze the prevailing economic and political conditions from a Marxian standpoint, whether these conditions do or do not demand | for class political action on the part of the workers and exploited farmers —political action in the sense of or- ganizing an al-embracing political party of their own, as a power against the capitalist parties, etc., but Com- rade Foster bases his conclusions on what he cares to see on the surface. Marxians must base their policy,” pointed out Comrade Ruthenberg, “upon the scientific analysis of the question affecting society, and there- fore, if the conditions in the United States have been such as to develop a movement for independent political action on the part of the workers and exploited farmers a year or two ago. and if these conditions have not changed for the good of the working class, but to the contrary, have grown for the worse. then why argue that the farmer-labor movement is dead and buried? It is our Communist duty to take the leadership of the movement and make it serve to build the Workers (Communist) Party. We can do that by rallying the workers and exploited farmers around us thru a campaign with the slogan: FOR A CLASS FARMER-LABOR PARTY.” This nailed the head of Foster’s ar- guments down fast, and remained nailed down for the whole evening, and are still there, as far as we are concertied. There remained some of the “tails” of Foster’s arguments still wagging, and in the next few minutes Comrade Ruthenberg stopped the wagon (wagging) by burying them. dead. Foster Speaks Second Time. When Comrade Foster arose to speak for the second time. one could see that he felt defeated. H did not have an argument, a real argument to advance. He was picking “flowers,” a little one here and there. When pressed for an answer why he had ordered the militant trade unionists in Canonsburg. Pa., representing a dis- trict of 10,000 miners who had placed in their program a demand for a farmer-labor party, to take that de- mand out of their program and sub- stitute in its place a negative propo- sition of “Independent politiccal action,” Foster, at first, denied having done anything of the kind; that he did not know of anything of the kind, but then turned around and asked: “What if I did?” The fun of the matter is that Comrade Foster was asking for “proof” that the sentiment for a farmer-labor party expressed itself anywhere, now; right after, just a few days, after the presidential elec- tions. The decision of the A. F. of L: at El Paso. Texas, was interpreted to mean that the Gompers machine is getting ready to join forces with the LaFollette movement which was to be another reason why the Communists have no business to monkey with the slogan for a mass, class farmer-labor party. Ruthenberg in Rebuttal. ‘When Comrade Ruthenberg took the floor again he pointed out the illogical way of reasoning by Comrade Foster, when speaking of liquidation that “when there was a large mass farmer- labor movement then there was no danger of liquidation, but now, when, according to Foster, there’ is no farmer-labor movement, much less a sentiment for it, then there is a dan- ger to liquidate the Workers Party.” The point scored was, that Comrade Foster with his own arguments admits that there isa sentiment, a deep- rooted need for a class tarmer-labor party. Otherwise, “why be afraid that something which is not there will liquidate our party?” Ruthenberg wound up the discussion by apealing to the Lettish comrades to help Bolshevize the party by advo- cating the participation of our mem- bers in the everyday struggles of the American working class, let it be strikes, lockouts, protection of foreign born. amalgamation of craft unions into powerful industrial unions, un- employment councils, recognition of the first workers’ government, Soviet Russia, and by all means around the slogan for a class farmer-labor party; always having in mind how to serve the best interests of our party—the Workers (Communist) Party; how to make it grow, how to make it to be the leader of the American working class, to prepare them and to lead them now and in the final struggle— the revolition against American capi- talism., THE DAILY WORKER cussion on the farmer-labor party issue now before the membership, we just want to tell other comrades of the impressions we gained after listen- ing to the discussion at the above mentioned meeting by Comrades Foster and Ruthenberg. as given in the few foregoing paragraphs and sentences. We have read with concern the theses of the majority and the minor- ity of the central executive commit- tee; we have followed in every detail the dis@ussion carried on thru the DAILY WORKER, all of which really centers around only one issue, namely, the slogan for a mass, class farmer- labor party, and whatever else that may entail, and after allowing a cer- tain amount of deductions for things said and written which have nothing to do with the subject matter under discussion, we have come to the unani- mous conclusion that the minority, in their analysis of the economic and political conditions now prevailing in this country and in their analysis of our possibilities as a young and grow- ing Communist party, the minority of our central executive committee has a better, broader, more realistic and Marxian outlook than the majority. The minority represent’a living spirit. a Bolshevik spirit, something desiring to live, to work, to propagate, to or- ganize, to lead. and actively partici- pate in all struggles of the workers, including the struggle for a class, mass farmer-labor party as an abso- lute necessity for the politically back- ward American masses of workers. 2. In all the discussion, not a one has dared to minimize the fact that it was because of our campaigns in connection with the farmer-labor movement that we received not less than a million dollars worth of free publicity in the capitalist press. Every knock was to boost its. No other of our united front campaigns, including the amalgamation campaign, has re- flected itself in the capitalist press to such an extent as the farmer-labor campaign, If anyone’s memory . is short to remember 6, 12 or 18 months back, should at once consult the files of the capitalist press in any library in any American city to be convinced how the capitalist press was filled with lies, denunciations, slander and misrepresenstations of the Commun- ists. In our judgment the fact that the capitalist press, as a true repre- sentative of the capitalist interests, was alarmed, scared and frightened about our activities in connection with the farmer-labor party, is) the best and most convincing evidence that the minority of the central execu- tive committee is correct and that the farmep-labor movement is a living issue and therefore must be of con- cern to the Communists. 3. In the course of our campaigns to expose the true character of mis- leaders of American labor, particularly John F. Fitzpatrick. with whom our Comrade Foster was the last to break company, it was pointed out in the DAILY WORKER and the Labor Herald that John F. has once said: “I will immediately suspect myself of doing something wrong-for the labor movement the moment the Chi- cago Tribune will praise me,” or words to that effect. And John F. was asked, how about it, when the Chicago Tribune was actually praising him for the stand he took against the farmer-labor party movement and went over to Sam Gompers’ family, “to reward friends and punish ene- mies.” But how about it now? How about our majority? Fitzpatrick, Sam Gompers and the Chicago Trib- une? The fact of the matter is that they all agree that there is no senti- ment or need for a farmer-labor party. Comrades, we must strive to make our party a living Bolshevik party, and we shall not deny ourselves to advance one of the major slogans (Comrade Bittelman, please do not quote us as saying “the only slogan”) in our united front campaigns: “FOR A CLASS FARMER-LABOR PARTY.” THE MEMBERSHIP MEETING IN NEW YORK By ISRAEL AMTER. 'HE results of the New York mem. bership meeting were such that they need analysis. First of all the vote: 482 for the majority thesis, 330 for the minority. This would appear to be a great majority for the central executive committee thesis—and taken on the face of it would indicate a strong group in the city of New York supporting the position of Foster, Cannon and Bittelmatt. The matter, however, is not so sim- ple, for it must be understood that the strength of the. Lore group in the party is concentrated in New York. In fact, outside of the minority group in the New York district, the Lore group and their followers are the strongest group, the Foster-Cannon group being a small minority. It is a sad fact—but still a fact. The Lore group must not be regarded as a group of Comrade Lore and his friends. There is a Lore psychology and ideol- ogy which have succeeded in consoli. dating a large number of comrades, despite the decision of the Communist International, despite the fact that Comradé Zinoviev declared Comrade Lore “not a Communist;” and like a “social democrat hidden behind barri- cades because he says heis an ortho- dox Marxian;” despite the fact that the resolution of the Communist In- ternational declared him a “remnant scruples about the C. E. C. thesis— until the last moment—and at the German federation convention showed an irreconcilability between his view and that of the majority, it was per- fectly obvious that, as usual, Lore would line up with the majority—to whom he has a natural affinity. ‘As for the meeting itself. New York ontains the largest and most ad- vanced membership in the party. It was expected, therefore, that the ma. jority would send its most capable comrade to present its position. Bit- telman had done a very poor job for the party both at the German and the Hungarian federation conventions, and besides could not be considered a “strong” man. Comrade Cannon was chosen for the: presentation in New York. Those who had heard Com- rade Cannon’s presentation in the branches knew in advance what the contents of his argumentation at the membership meeting would be. A lit- tle understanding and command of theory is necessary in New York (This is said without any spirit of factionalism.) If our membership is to be Bolshevized, then it is to be ex. pected that the national educational director of the party should really command theory. There’ was not one moment of theory in the presenta tion of Comrade Cannon; only flam- boyant demagogy, misreperestation otf the Two.and-a-Half Internationa]|and appeals to the prejudices of the in the Workers Party.” This is due to nothing else that that reports are current in the party, eyi dently inspired by Comrades Fostér and Olgin, that the Olgin-Lore point of view on LaFollette won in Moscow. This is totally untrue. As Comrade Radek said, it is merely a coincidence that a “social-democratic point of view (that of Olgin-Lore) agrees with that of the Communist International.” Olgin-Lore were against the LaFol- lette alliance at a matter of principle; the Communist International was against it as a matter of safety for the party, since the Comintern deem- ed that the party was too weak to carry out the maneuver without dan. ger to itself. The Comintern did not brand the tactics as such as oppor: tunistic, but did see that in the Am- erican party there were strong evi- dences of opportunism—in the C. B. C. and in the ranks—which clearly indi. cated that the party would not be able to carry out the maneuvers with- out menacing its existence. Associated with this group are com. rades who have been appointed by the Cc. E. ©. to conduct the industrial work—comrades whom the C. E. C. thesis brands as opportuni The whole right wing element in the party gathers about the banner of Comrade Lore—even comrades who now call themselves followers ofthe Foster group, yet ideologically are still in the Lore camp. This group gave the victory to the majority thesis and in stating this, we do not weep tears after a defeat. We of the minority consider the New York membership meeting a great vic. tory; firstly, because the vote shows a strong Bolshevik minority in the city of New York; and secondly, be- cause the lines are clearly drawn 1, Im our contribution to the dis-lHven tho Comrade Lore had his) a NI membership. Thus, the book by Comrade Love- qne, “The Government— Strike. reaker,” was held up to the contempt of the comrades present, most of whom have not read the book. It was declared a non-Communist book, a farmer-labor screed, devoid of all evi- dence of Communism. It was unfor. tunate for Comrade Cannon as soon as he received the book, Comrade Losovsky, head of the Red Interna- tional of Labor Unions, ordered its translation into Russian and publica. tion by the R. I. L. Uy Before the meeting, New York was greeted by the publication of a pamphlet entitled “For A Communist Party of Action—Against Liquidat- ing the Workers (Communist) Party, Against Substituting the Workers (Communist) Party by a Sham Farm- er,Labor Party—an Appeal to the Members of District No. 2 Workers Party.” Then followed the names of thirty comrades of the English, Jew- ish, Russian, Lithuanian, Italian, Greek and Polish branches and of the Y. W. L. At the bottom it stated that the “publication was authorized by the central exeoutive committee.” This document was an eleventh hour attempt to separate the so-called Foster.Cannon group from the Lore group. dt was an eleventh-hour slfn- der upon the minority and a misrepre- sentation of its viewpoint and aims. At no place does the document say ¢ word about the Two.and-a-Half Inter nationalism of the Lore group; at no place is there even mention of the Lore group. This was quite natural. The point of view of the Lore and of the Foster group coincides. In other words, the Foster-Cannon group con- siders the minority, the “Marxian group in the Workers Party,” (as the executive committee of the Comintern said)’ the dangerous group in the party. There are two other significant facts about this pamphlet. As far as we have been abfe to learn, the cen- tral executive committee of the par- ty authorized the publication of a pamphlet by Comrades Olgin, Cannon and Manley, at the expense of the party, to expound the majority point of view. We do not know whether the political committee of the C. HB. C. approved the pamphlet before publication. The name of Comrade Cannon does not appear on the pam- phiet, but instead the names of thirty comrades of various language groups. We wish to ask the C. E. C. a ques- tion: DOES THE MAJORITY OF THE C. E, C. TAKE THE RESPON- SIBILITY FOR LEGALIZING CAUC- USES WITHIN THE PARTY? If they do, they are acting in violation of the Communist International, and are openly carrying on disruptive work in the party. If the C, E. C. did not give its approval to the publication of the pamphlet in this form, how does Comrade Cannon abuse the authority of the C. E. C. to allow a pamphlet to be published by a legally consti- tuted group of various federations within the party? Comrade Cannon, who said to me. that he gets his or- ders from Comrade Foster—and not from the central executive commit- tee, which sends out all instructions and decisions thru the executive sec- retary of the party, has openly con- stituted a caucus, a faction within the party. If the members of the central executive~ committee of. the party carry on such disruptive work, then what is the use ofall passionate ap- pears to build the Workers Party? A second point. All publications in any district of the party must pass thru the district executive committee, if the party is to retain its unity as an organization. The district execu- tive committee had no cognizance of the publication of this pamphlet os- tensibly authoried by the C. E. C. Is any group within the party, even if Comrade Cannon, a member of the C. E. C., belongs to it, to be allowed to usurp the authority of the recogniz- ed authority within the district? The meeting was one of the best meetings that have ever been held by the party membership in N. Y. City. The splendid presentation of the minority viewpoint by Comrade Ruthenberg showed who are the Marxians in the party. The member- ship recognized this fact and gave him an ovation. The minority is well satisfied with the membership meeting, but would like an answer from the C. EH. C. on the above questions. The member- ship is entitled to an answer. By WALTER T. FRANK. OMRADE BITTELMAN in the Dec. 2 issue of the DAILY WORKER severely criticizes the nature of the speech delivered by Comrade Amter to the Hungarian convention. He also attacks Amter for having delivered this speech, undoubtedly because it has seriously weakened the argument of the majority. Comrade Bittelman asks on what ground will Comrade Amter and the minority justify the raising of this issue in the party. Comrade Bittelman further says, “fac- tionalism as a rule, is most rampart in pre-convention periods but it would seem that there would be a limit to it somewhere.” ba : Minnesota “Majority” Putsch. 4 Comrade Bittelman undoubtedly hints that the minority in defending their position have overstepped the limit. Does Comrade Bittelman not know the Gompers tactics used by the majority as a means of forcing their views down the throat of the rank and file of the party. For an example the re-organization of the English branch in Minneapolis. The English branch meets every Thursday night. Previous-to the meet- ing on Thanksgiving day, a notice was. sent to the members of the branch, that inasmuch as the meeting was on Thanksgiving day it would be held in the morning, instead of in the eve- ning. Nothing was said about the con- templated re-organization of the branch. The meeting was opened by the statement that the English branch had not functioned and therefore should be reorganized. A chairman and secretary “supporting the major- ity views” were elected. The writer asked the chairman if it was not un- Communistic to reorganize a unit of the party, without having notified its members to that effect. One of the majority then answered that the con- stitution of the party had been care- fully examined and they had found no such provision. In replying to this it was pointed out that in a Communist organization there should be no need of inserting such provisions. That Fe sincere member of the party 3 should know that such tactics are non- Communistic and the insertian of such provisions in the consttiution would be admitting the existence of a lack of understanding of the elementary prin- ciple of Communism in the party. But it was unheeded, too much oil had been poured on the machinery ‘Then, Chairman J, O. Johnson having made an unfathomable discovery, the constitution of the party did not pre- vent one member of the branch from submitting a slate of candidates (of the majority) for the C. C. C. and various committees. Such a slate was then presented by Comrade Fineman. Since the machine was well oiled, members who generally do not attend regularly were present and in my opin- fon a special effort was made by the majority to control the meeting. As a result those supporting the majority rule were elected and those support- ing the minority views were elimin- ated. , Membership Repudiates “Majority.” I was retained as delegate to the C. C. ©. for the following reasons: (1) I had not then definitely determined which of the two theses were, in my opinion, correct. (2) The majority figured that there was a possibility of me supporting the majority. At the following meeting of the English branch, the dirty tactics em- ployed by the C. B. C, majority group was exposed, with the result that the branch became very indignant over what had been pulled on them at the previous meeting. ‘The ‘discussion brot out that Com- rade Braden who had been eliminated from the ©. ©. C, at this infamous Gompers meeting on Thanksgiving day, not because he had not been ac- tive or not attended the meetings regu- larly, but because the majority group teared him, The writer insisted upor MAJORITY DISPLAYS GOMPERS TACTICS to the C. C. C. A motion to that ef- fect was unanimotsly carried (meet- ing was very well attended). motion was made to rescind the form- re action of the branch. This motion would have carried unanimously had it not been for Comrade Braden and others stating that we should not pur- sue the same dirty tactics as used by the other group that we should main- tain our Communist integrity and prove by our actions, that we, the minority were not Gomperites in tac- tics. Where ts “Majority Logic.”* My contention is this, that if the ma- jority has such a splendid, logical argu- ment in favor of their position, they should not need to employ such dirty tactics. There is no excuse, Comrade Hathaway, first alternate of the C. E. C. and our district organizer was pres- ent at this meeting. He raised no ob- jection to the procedure of the meet- ing. On the contrary, he was actively oiling the machine. I challenge any one of these com- rades responsible for the application of such Gompers tactics to prove to the rank and file of our party that they were not overstepping the limit, that such tactics are not noh-Communistic. These comrades would insofar as tac- tics are concerned put the lieutenants of the deceased labor faker, Gompers, to shame. Previous to this infamous meeting of the English branch, at a C. C. C. meeting where Comrade Hathaway was present, the question of conduct- ing party discussion on the two theses came up. At this meeting Comrade Hathaway boasted of the fact that the majority group was organized and declared himself in favor of a com- mittee being elected, composed of rep- resentatives (not of both views) but of both groups. The writer and other comrades insisted that a discussion should be launched without creating factionalism and that we should strive for unity within the party and even though there always will be difference of opinions in the party as to policies, tactics, etc., we should under no con- ditions tolerate factionalism. Comrade Hathaway also said he was for unity in the party but that we should not be like an ostrich refusing to see the ex- istence of factigns. He has proved by Another, "Tuesday, January 6, 1925 his action that this was mere phrase- ology, an argument justifying the ex- istence of his machine. ™ How They “Bolshevize” the Party. Is this Bolshevizing the party of which the majority speaks? Many of the members of our branch have fought the capitalist system during periods of most severe persecution. They are rebels, and are not going to allow such Gompers’ tactics to be used if they can help it. It can be said to the\credit of the members of our branch, with the exception of those who blindly follow, the machine, that they are utterly opposed to it. An illustration of this element who blindly follow the machine, can be given by one comrade, a delegate to the C. C. C. who declared himself for the majority group, admitting he had not even read the thesis. Majority “Communist” Work In Unions. As to whether the majority or the minority are the most active, let the following information guide you: At the last meeting of the’ farmer-labor federation, a motion was made by the right wingers in the federation to in- vite Dr. Schaper to address them. Schaper was a recent candidate for nomination for the office of governor of Minnesota. He was given the en- dorsement by the D. E. C. Schaper later in the primary campaign repudi- ated this endorsement. R. S. Wiggins, assuming the role of leader of the left wing in the farmer- labor federation, said in support of the motion “that Dr. Schaper had consist- ently fought for power for the work: ing class and we will be fortunate in having such a man address the farm- er-labor federation.” Communist delegates to the farm- er-labor federation who at present happen to be of the majority, due to the machine work of the majority group in the labor unions, did not have the courage (or else did not understand what their duty was) to defend the Communist principles and strive to assume the leadership of the letf wing elements, by point- ing out that Dick Wiggins Is not rep- resenting the interests of the left wing, but is at the very best-a cen- trist or in other words and oppor- tunist. When members supporting the minority thesis were delegates to the F.-L. federation, they never failed to vigorously defend the principles, poli- cies and tactics of the party and point out to the rank and file the oppor- tunist leaders within the farmer-labor federation and in the trade unions. For the Marxian Group. © As to the thesis, I am convinced the minority thesis not only correctly analyzes the economic and political situation in this country, but draws a logical. Marxian deduction from this analysis as to the tactics and policies of the party that will build a mass Communist movement at the least ex- penditure of time and energy. The slogan for a class farmer-labor pafty is based upon the existing ma- terial base for a farmer-labir party and not deduced from the feelings of the masses but from existing econom- ic conditions, therefore it is purely Marxian and not opportunistic. Whereas the majority thesis’s tactics and policies are the result of that op- portunistic reasoning (against . which Karl Marx vigorously fought), that aims Ao destroy the fundamental eco- nomic principles as exponded by Karl Marx. — ' country— $2.00 a Year 1113 W. Washington Blvd. ~ “Revolution Comes A Painting by N. Kravchenko In the Revolutionary Museum in Moscow and one of the most famous paintings produced in Red Russia— Reproduced in three colors on the cover of the January, issue of the WORKERS MONTHLY— Copyrighted and not to be issued anywhere else in this You can have on fine’calendar stock, mounted on art board-suitable for framing and without cost WITH A YEAR'S SUBSCRIPTION TO 4 THE WORKERS MONTHLY. 25 CENTS EACH WITHOUT SUBSCRIPTION THE WORKERS MONTHLY ~~ Enclosed $........ (Mark with cross) For WORKERS MONTHLY (1 year) and picture...csssscsssssurnneere MOP cerncnetine OODOB OF PACING eischuchilhtidionbthcscriuinal NAMB ccscsssssesssssossvesssesosossssssvoecsssnoossonnsnssnvonncosesssssosssssvesssensosssnonesensneececccosooenonsen, WT REIT scsrecrersesensevnsssetrenreversossestneneittotnntivenpeesesseneveneettsaesasa [<p RNR niNonlatonBa Mane TMery ey, 7s. aa dui wey OE" $1.25 Six Months Chicago, tll. Met