The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 7, 1925, Page 3

i (4 i \ Wednesday, January 7, 1925 THE DAILY WORKER Page Three Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks LOVESTONE’S LABOR PARTY BOOK: “THE GOVERNMENT—STRIKEBREAKER” By WM. Z, FOSTER. N the present party discussion, one of the main contentions of the C. BH. C. is that the farmer-labor Com- munists tend strongly to liquidate the Workers Party by pushing it and its interests into the background and by making their “class” farmer-labor party an end in itself. With high in- dignation the self-styled “Marxian trunk” of our party repudiate this accusation, They declare that with them the farmer-labor party is the merest instrument for the building of the Workers Party, and that they nev- er for a moment forget that they must use it to develop the prestige and leadership of the Workers Party amongst the masses. After which, it is highly instruc- tive to take a look again at Jay Lovestone’s book, “The Govern- ment—Strikebreaker.” This book is a striking proof of the correctness of the contention that the “cla farmer-labor party sloga’ posed by the minority, ly, under present conditions, to op- portunism and liquidation of the Workers Party. Lovestone’s book is labor party propaganda pure and simple, It ignores the Workers Party altogether. “The Government — Strikebreaker” has 871 pages. It is by far the most pretentious literary effort ever made by the Workers Party; and the sub- ject it deals with—the government as a class organization and what to do about it—is one of the most vital consequence. In this book, consider- ing all the expenditure of money and effort, and with such an important subject, was a splendid opportunity for the Workers Party to make effec- tive propaganda for itself. Indeed, in the very natuge of. the subject, the book, to be of real value to the Work- ers Party, had to demonstrate clearly that the Communist program alone in- dicates the only way the workers can emancipate’ themselves, and that the Workers Party is the only party cap- able of leading the working class to the overthrowal of capitalism. But, Lovestone’s book does none of this. It forgets entirely the main ob- jective of building the Workers Par- ty. It is concerned only with the for- mation of a labor party. The book appeared in 1923. Loyvestone, like Pepper, and so many others, was al- ready obsessed with the labor party- ism which at present so sharply char- acterizes him. He undertakes an ela- borate analysis of the capitalist state, showing how it operates as an in- strument of the capitalist class against the working class. But then, instead of bringing the Workers Par- ty to the fore, by demonstrating its function as the vanguard of the pro- letariat and by outlining its immedi- ate program and ultimate goal, he ac- tually leaves the Workers Party out of the picture altogether. His book degenerates into nothing more or less than an argument for a labor party. This costly publication, which should have been a powerful exposition of Communist principles, policies, and organizations, turns out to be merely propaganda for the labor party. » The extent to which Lovestone shoves aside our party is almost in- credible. In the whole bulky volume the Workers Party actually men- tioned only once. That and no more. This lonesome mention occurs on page 334, when Lovestone merely in- cidentally, in his usual role of disin- terested spectator, remarks briefly that the W. P. delegates were not seated at the C. P. P. A. conference in Cleveland in 1922. So intent is he on boosting the labor party as an end in itself, that he does not even consider it worth while to state why they were not seated or what their program was. Indeed, at no point in the whole book does he even indicate that the Workers Party favors the formation of a labor party, or tell why it does, or what its labor party policy is. He sdys absolutely nothing about the big fight the Workers Par- ty was then making thruout the labor movement for the labor party. He - does not point out the limitations of a labor party, nor does he even re- motely indicate the necessity for the _ Fevolutionary Workers Party to lead the workers to the revolution. He is so intent upon making propaganda for the labor party that he ignores the Workers Party completely. This systematic suppression and ob- literation of the Workers Party is what the farmer-labor Communists call keeping the Workers Party in the foreground and exploiting the labor party movement for its benefit. But we of the C, E. C. majority dub it what it actually is, a policy of op- portunism and liquidation. Lovestone’s book is an advocacy af the lakor party as an end in itself. TI is no other conclusion possible from a reading of the book. While Lovestone indicates the class character of the state and at least hints that the workers must abolish it, he by no means says that the Workers Party is necessary to do the job. His analysis leads merely to an argument for the formation of a jor party. The assumption is that such a party is sufficient. From the text there is no chance that a reader could get any information about, or an appreciation of the Workers Party and Its role, The book. Seemingly its only function is to humbly pay the heavy bills for this opportunistic labor party Propaganda and to modestly put its name on the book cover as the pub- lisher. In his recent article, Comrade Man- ley estimates that $50,000 had been directly spent in our labor party pro- paganda. This is a fair estimate, al- tho Comrade Ruthenberg evasively disputes it. To it should be added the high cost of Lovestone’s book, which is labor party propaganda de luxe. Since his book came into question, the minority comrades who engineer- ed its publication are very shifty and indefinite about what it cost to pro- duce. But considering the extensive research work done and the expensive make-up of the book, it must have cost $3,000, if not more. Comrade Loyestone wrote the book in his best opportunistic style. Not only did he keep the Workers Party out of it altogether, but he also care- fully edited out revolutionary expres- sions and references. He was des- perately anxious to be respectable and to make a good showing with the la-) bor partyites, It is a glowing ex- ample of the kind of propaganda our party should not make. In the present party discussion, Comrade Lovestone constantly ex- udes quotations, however inappro- priately, from Marx, Lenin, Zinoviev, and other revolutionary leaders. An inexpert reader would conclude that these men were the great originators and defenders of the “class” farmer- labor party. But in his opportunist- ic “The Government—Strikebreaker,” Lovestone disposes with them very nicely, He does not quote one of them. Altho Lovestone attempts the fundamental Communist task of ana- lyzing the capitalist state, explaining the robbing of the workers thru the wages system, and of finding a reme- dy for this exploitation, he never finds it necessary to mention the names of Marx or Lenin, or of any other world- known, revolutionist once in the en- tire book. In fact, except for my- self (I am quoted a number of times) all the authors cited are thoroly re- spectable bourgeois. Not even the taint of socialism is upon any of them, much less Communism. In making his opportunistic ana- lysis of the state and in providing his, quack remedy of a labor party, Lovestone had little use for the say- ings of revolutionists, American or foreign. When he analyzes the state his authorities are not Marx or Len- in, but Woodrow Wilson, Beard, Fiske, McMaster, Bryce, and simi- lars. When he wants an authority on the exploitation of the workers he tells us what was said by Rep- resentative Ricketts, whoever he may be. Various reactionary politi- cians and economists illuminate his points on wage: Sen. Shields and Allen Smith expound on the class nature of the courts and the - “class character” of the persecution at Herrin was most forcefully “ex- posed” by A. W. Kerr, attorney for the nse—! thought the Work- ers Party had had something to say upon that subject. Lovestone’s book deals largely with the textile, mining, and railroad strikes of 1922. But not a word does he say about the policy of the Work- ers Party, or of the part played by it in these struggles. In the whole book there is not a single quotation from the Worker or from any state- ment of the Workers Party. On the other hand, the book is just packed with quotations from reactionary pa- pers, politicians, labor leaders, and economists. When he indicates the growing class consciousness of the workers in the struggles mentioned, he cites not the Worker, but the Rail- way Clerk. When he wants an ap- praisal of the significance of the Her- rin trial, he takes it from a manifes- to of the Illinois farmer-labor party. So it goes, all thru the book. Re- spectables and fakers crowd one an- other's heels, so much so that there is no room, or, in Lovestone’s con- ception, need for revolutionaries. The Workers Party and the revolu- tionary movement in general are kept well in the background. This fits in very nicely with the labor party con- clusions at the end. One thing that makes me feel queer is the various quotations from the Labor Herald and myself. How come we in such re- spectable company? We are the only revolutionary sources quoted in the entire book. Why pick on us, Com- rade Lovestone? What did we ever do to you that you should include us in such ultra-orthodox company? But, perhaps, the explanation is that by calling the Labor Herald “the well- known trade union magazine” and myself “one of the ablest and lead- ing advocates of amalgamation,” you figure that we are kosher enough to get by. Certainly you do not link us up any way with the Workers Party, whose identity you are 80 care- ful to suppress all thru the book, Since, in the party discussion, I have pointed out that Lovestone’s book advocates the labor party as an end in itself, the minority comrades also say that even Lenin sometimes wrote pamphlets without directly ad- vocating the Communist Party. But can we (as yet) compare Lovestdne with Lenin? And whoever heard of Lenin, who about all others taught the principle of always keeping the Communist Party in the forefront, writing a 3871-page book, leaving all mention of the Communist Party out of it, and concentrating his whole ar- gument in a demand that the work- ing class work for a party rival to the Communist Party? No one, of course, Then the argument is made Lovestone’s book has been translated in Russia. But what of that? That lends no endorsement of his farmer- labor party deviations, The Russians are far from endorsing in toto all that they translate and publish. This is a@ matter of common knowledge. They have translated Upton Sinclair’s books, the life of Henry Ford, Tay- lor’s works, and many others far from Communist in conclusions, Lovestone and his minority follow- jers may squirm as they will. But his book speaks for itself. It is a clear that | case of labor party opportunism. It} is an advocacy of the labor party, not to the advantage of the Workers Party, but at its expense; it puts for- ward the labor party, not merely as a tactical maneuver, but as a substi- tute for the Workers Party. Even) when labor party sentiment was| strong in the whole country, we, in| our reaching for the masses, commit-| ted many opportunistic errors, of which Lovestone’s book is only one glaring example. But now, when the} labor party moyement has amalga-| mated itself with the LaFollette move- | ment, the continuance of our labor | party polidy, by causing still more | reckless efforts to get hold of the masses, would lead us into a veritable morass of opportunism. The health of our party “would be greatly en- dangered, The discarding of the far- mer-labor party slogan, as the C. EB. C. thesis proposes, and the concen- tration of our activities to the united front polity as outlined by the Com- intern, offers the only way to build the Workers Party into a mass Com- munist Party. By JOSEPH MANLEY of the minority, in the present party discussion, carry me in memory back to the dear dead days of the romantic past of the minority. In these days of farmer-labor knight-errantcy, when the central executive commit- tee operated in a bucolic Polyanna ye atmosphere created by those of the minority who saw the (LaFollette) revolution—just around the corner, The C, I, decision and what hap- pened at the Cleveland C, P. P. A. conference seem not to effect at all the methods of reasoning or the line of argument of the minority. Their myopic methods produce a distorted picture of events that suits and bol- sters up the preconceived conception of the minority—that right or wrong we must have a farmer-labor party. By twisting and turning the merest everyday happenings in the labor movement, into “debacles” for the policy of the majority and howling victories for the minority. And all this they swear to, not 4n the name of God but of Marx. Back of all this minority distortion and exaggeration lies much that is personal desire and ambition. When it was the chief object of the group to have Comrade Ruthenberg accom- pany Comrade Pepper to Moscow. Comrade Ruthenberg in spite of our importunings did not go across. He probably felt that the big thing for him would be to organize for the St. Paul convenion while Pepper and Fos- ter fought it out in Moscow. Then when Foster got back he would be faced with a fait accompli—a farmer- labor party. In this Comrade Ruthenberg reckon- ed without his host. In spite of all information to the contrary Foster got back before the ‘St. Paul convention, and brought with him a decision which changed basically, insofar as the LaFollette maneuver was con- cerned our whole conception and pro- gram. The lesson I learned from Foster's first reading of the C. I. decision to the C. E. C., was that our farmer- labor movement was nothing short of a united front at the’ top, which all factions alike were equally respon- sible for. My experience was that the majority were the quickest to recogn- ize this conclusion and the correct- ness of the C. I. decision itself, and it was this factor more than any other which won me away from the minor- ity, and eventually led to my joining the majority. ‘ I too have said that Comrade Love- stone is the most logical thinker of the minority. But Comrade Ruthenberg also, on occasion is logical, Is it not logical for Comrade Ruthenberg to continue to hang on to the name of the farmer-labor party? He it was, he could. In his official capacity as secretary, before the holding of the July 3rd, 1923 convention, he got out subscription lists for donations to the campaign for a federated farmer- labor party. These lists brought about a near crisis in the negotiations between us and the old tarmer-labor party. He wrote the platform of the ill-fated federated that was organized at the. Chicago convention. He wrote manifestos issued by it. He attended the first St. Paul conference to ar- range for the St. Paul convention, He and I perhaps more than anyone else became steeped in the farmer-labor movement. He went to the February gathering of the C. P. P. A. at St. Louis; and well I remember that on his return he wrote a thesis in which he said nothing but a miracle could prevent the organization of a labor party at the coming Cleveland July 4 convention of the C. P. P, A, As I have intimated Comrade Ruthenberg’s supreme effort was made after Pepper and Foster left for MINORITY MUMBO-JUMBO— THE FARMER-LABOR PARTY RGUMENTS put forth by leaders | I was a member of the Pepper caucus) ), |the St, Paul convention furnishes the basis of the present alleged sentiment found by the minority for the farmer- jlabor party. The only real sentiment; for a farmer-labor party I can find after months of close observation all over the country is in the ranks of the minority itself, or those with an op- portunist inclination, It this logic founded upon events that are dead and gone that is responsible for the intransigent attitude of Ruthenberg and others. The leaders of the minority are busy citing “facts” to prove either the existence of actual organization of or sentiment for, a farmer-labor party. Let me cite an actual fact bearing upon the existence of an organized farmer-labor movement in one typical} F. L. P. state—South Dakota. The farmer-labor party of South Dakota was an organization, composed mostly of bankrupt farmers and some indus- trial workers. Its two well known leaders, were Tom Ayres and Alice Lorraine Daly. Miss Daly several years ago polled over 40,000 votes for governor of South Dakota. Ayres is far superior to Mahoney both for pol- sincere farmer- ‘the ‘two day con- ference immediately before the hold- ing of the St. Paul convention stood with us against Mahoney who wanted to keep the Workers Party out of the St. Paul convention. In the conven- | tion itself Ayres, again rallied his fifty | delegates—mastly farmers—to stand with us. Again at a caucus of his delegation Ayres with the assistance | of three Finnish Communists from) South Dakota put the delegation on} record to stay in the convention, even if LaFollette was not nominated. But all Ayres influence availed him no- thing against the wave of LaFollette hysteria. When the delegation re-| turned to South Dakota, they de manded and insisted that their farmer- labor party go for LaFollette, in spite of the fact that LaFollette’s gang set up a duplicate organization in South | Dakota and generally double-crossed the farmer-labor party. Ayres and the South Dakota farmer-labor party went | with LaFollette. Today, Ayres is no longer active in the political life of| the farmers but is writing insurance for a living. And the South Dakota farmer-labor party is broken up and scattered to the four winds. This is an instance of the “seperatness” from the LaFollette movement, of the phat er-labor movement that the leaders of the minority try hard to find or create even in their own imagination. The minority’s proof of the exist- tence of the sentiment is cited by them in the Massachusetts C. P. P. A. conference. The facts as I found them on a recent trip to Boston was that the Massachusetts C. P. P. A. conference was not representative of who consistently pushed it whenever| the C. P. P. A. itself as generally con-|!t is @ sample of the stituted. The Massachusetts confer- ence was ignored by the Railroad Brotherhoods and the bulk of the A. F, of L., unions affiliated with the Cen- tral Labor Union. Those actually participating were the A. C. W., the I. L, G, W., the Jewelry Workers and the Machinists along with a bunch of fraternal and benefit organizations. The delegates who favored a farmer- labor party were either members of our own party or influenced by its late campaign, Our own party members who were delegates, appeared to be caught more or less unprepared and did not execute their manouver as in- structed by the C, B. C. with any de- gree of brilliancy, Whatever the reason for this, it i ificant that the D, 0., Comrade Ballam who, was charged with the responsibility of directing the maneuver, was not even present and he now issues a tirade against the majority on the grounds of his own peculiar “dialec- tical” presentation, Surely Comrade Ballam will hardly claim that the nar- Moscow. He organized many farmer-|row basis of the Massachusetts C. P. labor parties thruout the east, all for} P. A. gathering he speaks of, was a farmer-labor party, On the other hand, Comrade Ballam and Ruthen-' berg see nothing significnt in the fact that Comrade Winfield A, Dwyer the! Massachusetts Workers Party can- didate for secretary of state in the recent election polled 24,000 votes, Comrade Dwyer is a longshoreman with a union button on his lapel as big as a dish pan. He is famous amongst the men of his trade and the workers generally for his militant fight in their everyday struggles. His 24,000 votes as a Communist candidate is a fact that tho in front of Comrade Ballam’s nose he does not see, but it is a complete refutation of the specious argument of the minority, It shows that the issue in Mass. is not a left wing F.-L. P. but the Workers Party itself. It is a sample of the united front at the bottom that the majority stands for. It is’ a united front that will win workers not for opportunism but for Communism. Now that the minority on the say- so of Comrade Lovestone has become the “Marxian group.” And deals in such truck as the following taken from a series of “Mike and Ike” ques- tions and answers published in the Daily Worker for Dec. 24: “The cen- tral executive committee made no ef- fort to conduct a political campaign combining united front actions, such as unemployment, recognition of Sov- iet Russia, etc., with the election cam- paign in order to transform the elec- tion campaign from one of mere pfo- paganda for our candidates into one of political action.” If ever there was conscious mis- representation, this certainly is, The fact is and Comrade Lovestone knows it very well, that I was made cam- paign manager because the majority demanded and insisted upon someone, because they wanted a real political campaign and at that time I was the least objectionable to Ruthehberg. The desire of Comrade Ruthenberg was to have no campaign manager, so that every phase of the campaign would be completely under his per- sonal control. After my appointment, I made recommendations, for instance, for the publication of various leaflets —a million copies to start with—mak- ing a special political appeal to the workers in every basic industry and calling in the country. These leaflets I proposed should be distributed free }and should be the beginning of an attempt to reach the masses with our political program. Comrade Foster in particular and the rest of the major- ity supported me in this proposition. Comrade Ruthenberg took the posi- tion that no money could be found for this free distribution, and so nothing ever came of it. Comrade Ruthenberg if any one many ever ran anything, ran the tech- nical end of the last campaign. He it was who made the campaign to raise the money. Comrade Wagenknecht only coming in when it was more than half over; he it was under whose direction the number of leaflets and pamplets were gotten out. If less than ten thousand of Lovestone’s “LaFol- lette Illusion” were distributed, it is not the fault of the majority but of Comrade Ruthenberg. And Lovestone knows this also. I, thought bearing the name of campaign manager was nothing but a clerk in the office. The fact is that when the majority pro- posed any measure tending to branch out with a real broad political cam- paign, they and I met with the fact that everything even to the execution of the merest office detail, was fasten- ed down by the executive secretary, whose principal consideration, it ap- peared to me while in the general of- fice, was to keep within his personal grasp everything and anything even to ridiculous details that pertained to the administration of the general | rible to mention. office. These matters are cited against the alleged fact by Lovestone: that the majority sabotaged the election campaign. This charge By Lovestone is on a par with the one that Foster believes in the united front at the top. Foster more than anyone else, continually warned us against Ma- honey, saying repeatedly that Ma- honey would surely double cross us. “Marxian” analysis that Lovestone and his group apply not alone to internal party af- fairs but to objective conditions in general. The facts which cause the minority to champion at present the issue-of a farmer-labor party are subjective rather than objective. That is why their arguments are unconsciously subjective and personal. When they spedk of such objective matters as the A. F. of L. convention or the Min- nesota farmer-labor federation, they display in addition to their desire to subvert everything to their subjective ends, a naive lack of understanding the realities of working class organi- zation It is this subjective aloofness and naivete on the part of the minor- ity toward working class problems that creates the present situation in our party, No talk from the minority about the silliness of the majority; no self laudation by the minority as the only “Marxian group” in the party, will disprove the poverty of their ob- jective analysis. They have not the intellectual courage to admit their mistakes. To perpetuate their kind the St. Paul convention. To stil! main-| hardly broad enough for even a left | of leadership they want to fasten upon tain the necessity of this past work| wing farmer-labor party. In the haly-|our young party a dead policy for a is the secret of Comrade Ruthenberg’s|con days of the farmer-labor party |dead movement, present logic. All the noise made in| movement in Massachusetts and after on and their ing these parties, all the money | repeated attempts I could get nothi 1 int , The nt ad with the farmer-labor party, the future with the Workers (Communist) ¥ THE MAJORITY IS “DISMAYED” By P. CLINE. AST Friday, the 19th of December, the majority suffered a “crushing” frontal attack by the valiant defend- ers of the farmer-labor party. Com- rade Engdahl was the gunner who de- livered the broadside. His article en- titled “Fight Off the Paralysis” fur- nished the shrapnel. The majority is ruefully gathering together the bat- tered remnants of its defense and is seriously considering unconditional surrender. But while breathlessly waiting for Comrades Foster, Bittel- man and others to recover it behooves the rank and file to “carry on.” Comrades Engdahl in his article assaults the same sector of the ma- jority lines that was subjected to the terrific bombardment of Comrade Bedacht earlier in the week, namely the passivist, fatalist sector. One wonders that Comrade Engdahl, as editor of the DAILY WORKER could not pick a more propitious time, to publish his article than simultaneous- ly with that of Comrade. Browder’s reply to Bedacht. After reading Com- rade Browder’s simple, lucid, and un- disputable statement of facts, one turns to Comrade Engdahl's journal- istic froth with vast incredulity. It is unfortunate that the arguments of the majority put one in such a frame of mind, but they are so doggone con- vincing one can’t help it. At any rate, Comrade Engdahl at- tacks the majority for withdrawing from the class struggle because it has discarded the farmer-labor party slogan and campaign. He aimlessly quotes from Infantile Sickness of Left Communism by Lenin to the effect that the political activities of the Communist Parties are not simple and easy. It requires strenuous men- tal gymnastics to figure out how this militates against the majority which has consistently pointed out that there are no magical paths by which we can build our party into a mass Communist Party, but that we must do this painstakingly, “brick by brick.” Indeed it is against the mi- nority that this quotation can be most fittingly aimed. It is they who seek easy roads to power thru united fronts with non-existant labor, parties composed of illusory masses. To the comrades of the minority the class farmer-labor party is the “clean, wide, level, straight, street” to the mass Communist Party. Nay, more than that, It is the only street. If we tread it we will come to masses, pow- er, prestige—even revolution. If we do not we are doomed to sectarian- ism, syndicalism, fatalism, passivism, chyostism, and other diseases too hor- However, Comrade Engdahl’s farmer-labor party complex does not enable him to see that his quotation from Lenin is a veritable boomerang. He actually thinks he has made a joint. Knocking at the Wrong Door. Reading further along, we are in- formed that the majority refuses to fight LaFolletteism except with words. Evidently this is the old ruse of robber turning accuser. Who is |Follette third party. it that wishes to fight LaFolletteism with words (class farmef-labor party for instance) if not the minority it- self? Who is it that wishes to com- bat the ‘petty-bourgeoisie democratic illusions of the masses as expressed in the LaFollette movement, with petty bourgeoisie illusions as express- ed in the farmer-labor party, if not the minority? Who is it that expects to win the masses thru organization- al maneuvering and convention groups if not the minority? The ma- jority on the other hand, proposes to break the democratic pacifist illusfona of the masses by entering into united fronts with them on the basis of con- crete issues and pressing needs. In this way it will be able to assume actual, everyday leadership over them, it will be able to give their struggles a political orientation and thus expose the nature of the capital- ist state and its henchmen of the La- Follette type. Only in this manner can the Workers Party effectively proceed to revolutionize the masses and to develop class political action. Erasing the LaFollette Movement. Having demonstrated to his own satisfaction that the majority refuses to fight the LaFollette movement. Comrade Engdahl curiously enough proceeds to show that the LaFollette movement is no more. We are told that it was merely an ephemeral elec- tion phenomena and that it is already vanishing into thin air, leaving the precious farmer-labor party high and dry, ready for us to salvage. As con- clusive evidence of this there are cit- ed various instances of labor fakers and “effete politicians” who are for- saking the LaFollette ranks. The masses are pictured as burningly re- sentful over this betrayal of their hopes. Here they had their hearts set on a party all for themselves— and the LaFollette gang has cheated them out of it! Therefore, their il. lusions are utterly destroyed, and they are ready to follow the Work- ers Party in organizing a class farm- er-labor party! This is a striking ex- ample of the topsy-turvy thinking of the minority, It does not occur to them that the reason why the third party movement is not being crystal- lized is because the mass sentiment for it has lulled. It is the masses themselves who are betraying the La- Instead of de- manding the formation of a class farmer-labor party as the minority pictures them, they are even indif- ferent to the formation of a third party. But this does not at all imply that the democratic, petty bourgeois ideology, which inevitably takes the form of the LaFollette movement has been destroyed. If the comrades of the minority do not see this we might gently ask them for tangible manifest- ations of the farmer-labor storm which LaFollette’s betrayal has oc- casioned. We would like to see a few of these enraged workers who are going to get even with LaFollette by organizing a farmer-labor party. Perhaps some of them may be peeved enough to join the Workers Party. “WE SHALL NOT—” By A. J. LIPSHITZ. ‘HE overwhelming majority of the T Seaees Party members are work- ing men and working women, who, for many reasons are, unfortunately, not in a position to be as close students of the Communist literature as our more fortunate (in this respect) com- rades whose labors do not lay in fac- tory or mill or who are endowed with more than average intelligence—and who consequently find it somewhat difficult to follow or take part in a discussion that has resolved itself not only in a battle of wit and wisdom but also of literary accomplishment. And, yet, we of the rank and file have our definite ideas about the matter. Shorn of all quotations, of all slogans, and simmered down toa plain aud practical proposition, the situa- tion presents itself to me in this shape ~—Should we or should we not devote our time and hard-earned pennies for the purpose of establishing a non- Communist political party on the off chance that later on we will be able to utilize this party for the purpose of advancing the Communist cause? Put in that form the unhesitating answer must be: “We should not,” and for the following perfectuy obvious reasons: (1) Because we know that all par- ties and organizations which are successful in gathering strength are quite naturally and invariably assum- ing their own individuality, their own forme and develop their own psy- chology. Once they become an organization they fight for their existence as all organisms in nature are, and their fight and resistance is in proportion to their strength, (2) That a class farmer-labor party would be molded in the image of the British labor party, and become in time the mostsefficient tool of the capitalist dictatorship and our bitter- est enemy. (3) If past experience is any cri- terion in estimating situations—I am justified in assuming: That in spite of the fact that the Worker Party (that is, assuming we could do it, enema eaten een. which is not at all certain) was large- ly instrumental in establishing the farmer-labor party, the leadership will soon slip into the hands of the labor taker fraternity, especially if there were important personal ends to be gained, and if organized labor should be attracted, thereby making the pro- fessional fakers’ entry easy. (4) That it is more than a mere assumption that should, in the future, a new, younger, and more brasen Moses arise to take the place of La- Follette, and who will offer all kinds of reforms for the asking. That such a person at the head of a middle class combination, such as the LaFollette, will easily gather in such a farmer labor party bag and baggage, leaving the Workers Party high and dry, (5) That nothing is so demoralizing to us rank and file than to give our little time and money to support can- didates whom we despise tho we may do it out of a sense of discipline, but this is putting an unnecessary strain on our loyalty. I would wish to call the attention of the advocates of the farmer-labor party slogan that the rank and file of the Workers Party are not profes- sional politicians tho many kid selves that they are. The vast ity are just blunt and determined men and women who like to call a spade and spade, and this makebe- lieve and questionable maneuvering is the shortest way to discourage and doubt. We like to keep on right ahead — straight — the Communist Party against the capitalist dictator- ship. That road we understand! we can come out and face the enemy on our own terms, fearless and sure of our ground, , But we are at a disadvantage when called upon to defend positions we do not believe in and doubt their utility. In conclusion permit me to say that all comrades will agree on this: That heap occa. the discussion has done us a of good—notwithstanding its sional bitterness—and that it be most desirable that more outside of those recognized as should have their