The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 7, 1925, Page 4

Page Four \ T HE DAILY WORKER Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate FIGHTING THE LaFOLLETTE THIRD PARTY By WILLIAM WEINSTONE. Clearing the Ground. (PN Joining the discussion at this late -date, it is necessary to clear the ground of many little heaps of decep- tive arguments piled up by the major ity to catch the imaginations of com- rades who were disappointed by the actual organizational accomplish- ments resulting from the labor party campaign. In the branch discussions, the motto of the majority seems to be “one reference to the F. F. L. P. and St. Paul is worth a dozen arguments.” This group of arguments about the alleged premature efforts to form a la- bor party, blinds many comrades to the actual situation now confronting the party. It settles for them the en- tire question. These comrades say, “July 3 and June 17! What vain and futile efforts! Why should we try it again? Why spend our energy and money upon such work?” These arguments tho they are mat- ters for consideration in future under- takings of a similar nature, are not valid arguments for the present dis- cussion. Only comrades opposed on principle to the advocacy of a labor party can propose them as decisive arguments against the utilization of the “farmerlabor party” slogan at present. If they apply to the minor- ity, they likewise apply to the major- ity. The majority maintains that the campaign for a L. P. produced bene- ficial results in the strengthening of our party. The majority agrees to participate in the movement for a L. P. should sentiment for it again arise. It is an undialectic method to judge the campaigns for the united fronts by whether an actual, lasting united front is achieved. The Communist In- ternational is not engaged in the unit- ed front for the purpose of forming al- liances with the social democrats and labor bureaucrats. It is interested in arousing the workers, in breaking their lethargy in divorcing them from their petty-bourgeois leadership. Judged by the number of united fronts actually formed, the Commun- ist International ould not have very much to boast about. Judged by the success gained thru the united front tactics in winning the masses, the Communist International has every- thing to boast about. The united front has turned the Communist Parties from sects into mass parties. The united front is a method of revolu- tionary “agitation and mobilization of the masses.” Nothing more. Keeping the W. P. in the Foreground. The second group of deceptive ar- gument centers about the declaration “We must at all times keep the Workers Party in the foreground.” If this is an argument against the labor party slogan at the present time; it is an argument against it for all time. What does keeping the Workers Par- ty in the foreground mean? In the foreground of the class struggle, of the everyday activities of the mass- es. And it does not mean, merely keeping the name of the party before the masses. This is the way of the propaganda societies—of the S. L. P., which confines its activities to the is- suance of a leaflet bearing the S. L. P. emblem. A fighting Communist organization must have a program for the immediate activities—it must en- gage in united fronts; it must be the heart and soul of every movement against the capitalists. These tactics keep the party in the center and in the foreground of things. The united front substitutes the name of a bloc of organizations for the Workers Party in a given instance, but it brings the party into the heart of the masses, into leadership of their strug- gle. This is what we must accomplish. If this argument were valid for the present discussion, it would apply to the majority as well as minority. The majority maintains that during the election period, where the masses are immature, the united front will be employed in the form of labor con- gresses, councils of action and labor parties. In other words, of organiza- tions other than the party itself. If the growth of the Workers Party depends upon its ability to find ways ‘and means to reach the broad masses of workers and if it confined itself to winning the masses thru an S. L. P. orthodoxy and a rigid formulation— it would wait until doomsday. The Point at Issue. The real point at issue is not touch- ed_upon by the above objections to the minority position. The issue is— how to combat the LaFollette illu- sion. How to prevent the masses from going over into the third party camp. How to prevent the workers who are ready to break away from the old parties from going into the new bourgeois third party. The election showed that politically the party was isolated from the great of the workers. It’ obtained support of the party membership its close circle of sympathizers. change in the election policy was mecessary change. The election campaign helped to build up the movement by spreading Communist propaganda, etc., which is correct: ‘There is no reason to despair because of the low vote. But we must face fact that the party Is as yet weak ince among the masses. This kept firmly in mind in the ion of the tactics to be em- the present situation. To Isolation is the chief prob- ness compels us to employ the slogan of the farmer-labor party to combat the third party movement. The use of this slogan does not exclude the united front on the basis of the im- mediate economic and political issues and the minority thesis has not at all excluded it. It recognizes that the united front on the basis of the imme- diate issues is one of the major weap- ons in the campaign against the ene- mies of labor whether in the camp of the old parties orein the LaFol- lette movement. The workers are confronted at the present time with the necessity of making a decision. Shall they affiliate with the third par- ty? What shall we propose? What shall the party do? The chasm be- tween the broad masses of workers and the party is too great today, to ef- fectively make the counter-proposal of “supporting the Workers Party” against “Join the progressive party.” And the majority, tho it insists that this must be done as in the case of the Massachusetts C. P. P. A., shows itself to be wiser in other instances when it proposes “independent work- ing class political action” in the case of the carpenters, miners, and most recently in the left wing program of the machinists. The slogan “class farmerlabor par- ty” aims to utilize the sentiment which exists for the formation of an independent party of labor and in that way not only combatting the LaFol- lette movement, but steering the workers into a party independent of the petty-bourgeois. In England and France. The Communists in England faced a similar situation in the case of the MacDonald labor government. Zinov- jev tells us in the “Lessons of Mac- Donaldism,” that there the Com- munists employed the slogan “a real labor government with a class program” with telling effect. In France where the socialists and the petty- bourgeois Herriot organized the left bloc the Communists answered with the slogan of a “workers and pea- sants bloc.” Fraught with danger, as the slogan farmer-labor party un- doubtedly is because of the illusions, it may create within our own ranks, it nevertheless serves usefully in the present political situation . . . in fighting the LaFollette movement. ‘The Use of Middle-of-the-Road Slogans. The majority has raised the cry of opportunism against the middle of the road organizations. This applies only where there is a systematic pol- icy of building middle of the road or- ganizations irrespective of the poli- tical situation where there is a gen- eral policy of building political organ- izations, to accommodate masses not yet ready to join the Workers Party. However, the use of middie of the road slogans is not opportunism. It is the only method with which to mob- ilize the masses. The necessity of providing a link between the immedi- ate demands and the dictatorship of the proletariat brought forward the slogan of the “workers’ and farmers’ government.” In fighting against the LaFollette movement, it is not only necessary to have the immediate de- mands, slogans—it is necessary to have a slogan which can lead the masses further than the immediate struggle—lead them to desert the third party. They are not yet ready to bridge the gap between the LaFol- lette party and the Communist Party —the farmer-labor slogan will lead them on in that direction. Combatting Two-and-a-Half Inter. ‘ nationalism. The majority has avowed that it is opposed to Two-and-a-Half Interna- tionalism in the party. It charges the minority with bad faith in its fight against this menace. What, however, is the record of the majority on this issue? Not until Olgin began writing his articles, had the majority done anything. However, as if to counter- balance Olgin’s attack, Bittélman lost no opportunity to whitewash Lore of his past sins at the convention of the German, federation. What admission had Lore made of his past mistakes? Lore has been opposed to every policy of the Communist International with- out exception. He opposed the tac- tics of the Communist International in the Levi-Serrati controversy, but these are old errors. Most recently and most important of all, he support- ed the position of the Trotsky oppo- sition and the right wing group in the German party during the Octo- ber days. If he has admitted very weakly that he was wrong in the Levi and Serrati matters and in his criti- cism of the past policy of the C. L, which was made in his article in March of this year, there is very lit- tle to his credit. Even an infant can now see that Levy was a rank op portunist. But what about the oppo- sition in the Russian party? This is now the main internal question of the Communist International. The whole Second International bases its hopes for the disruption of the Com- munist International upon the devel- opment of this opposition. What about the German right wing? Lore has said nothing regarding his mis- takes in these questions. Why then the rush of the C. B. C. majority rep- resentative to whitewash Lore? What did the ©. B. CP do politically or or- ganizationally to influence the out come of the German federation con- vention? Why did it not take steps to assure the party of @ bureau which would ooh inten emcee: <1 inti Aa ty 4 loyally support the Communist Inter- national and would combat Two-and- aHalf Internationalism just as it is now utilizing its organization power to fight the minority. The press com- mittee elected by the convention to ‘control the Volkszeitung consists of comrades who are themselves unre- liable from the standpoint of their Communist ideology. The attitude of the majority toward Two-and-a-Half Internationalism is again shown by the manner in which it is combatting the opportunist tend- encies in our trade union work which it is compelled to admit exists and which it seeks to stigmatize in its thesis. However, why does not the majority tell the party who the lead- ers of this tendency are? Why does it treat it so abstractedly? This is using “diplomacy” in fighting a menace to the party. With such methods, the party will never be able to defeat the Two-and-a-Half and social demo- cratic ideology which is all too pre- valent in our ranks. The majority cannot convince the party member- ship that it realizes the extent and the menace of Two-and-a-Half Inter- nationalism within the party with such methods. LOREISM IN THE By ISRAEL AMTER ‘HE COMMUNIST INTERNA- TIONAL, after hearing of the derelictions of Comrade Lore, branded him and his followers as “remnants of views of the Two-and-a-Half Interna- tional.” This has been stated very mild- ly in the resolution of the Presidium of the Communist International. (Later we shall see what Comrade Zitioviev said on this matter.) In reporting to the Presidium for the American Commission, Comrade Radek, speaking of Lore and his fol- lowers said: “In conclusion let me say something about the Lore group. I believe that we are not dealing here with personal Japses of Comrade Lore. He has written articles in which he presents the history of the Communist International completely in the spirit of the Second-and-a-Half International. He represents us as a movement which at first was anti-par- liamentarian, and for splits in the trade unions, and fhen crept out to a realistic standpoint. Or in an article on the British Labor Party Lore says? “Poog MacDonald would like to do everything good for the working class, but the liberals won't let him.’ In an article on the German revolution, he says that conditions have long been overripe for the revolution, but the German Communist Party, for which taere are international difficulties, has succeeded in keeping the workers from the revolution. “I believe that behind these mat- ters there is one fact in regard to Comrade Lore. During the war there were in America German workers, former social-democrats, who for pat- riotic reasons were against America’s Participation in the war. Part of the German comrades in America came to us not as Communists but as | result of the struggle which they con- ducted as Germans against America’s entry into the war. And perhaps I am mistaken, but I have the impres- sion that Lore represents this sec- tion. ... For that reason I believe that the C. E. C. acted incorrectly when it regarded the lapses of Lore as lapses of peculiar fellow. This is a centristic tendency in the party against which the C. E. C. must fight. The comrades must oppose Lore in the press; they must attack him. “The comrades must not be misled by the fact that in the question of the support of the third party Lore has gone along with us. He did so from a traditional social-democratic point of view—because of fear of compromises with petty-bourgeois parties. We are on no account against such comprom- ises. ... But in Lore we have a social-democratic viewpoint meeting with a Communist point of view. And it would be very wrong if the deci- WORKERS PARTY But we have a still better specimen of this nationalism. Two days after Comrade Lore confessed his sins re- garding the Communist International, his stupid, social-democratic articles regarding the German revolution and the British labor government, there appeared on the editorial page of the Volkszeitung (Dec. 4) the following notice: “The Shame of the German Bourge- oisle. Berlin, Nov. 12. As we have learned, the constructors and engin- eers of the Zeppe) works at Fried- rickshafen are going to move to Amer- ica. Just the people who always talk of the ‘fatherland’ are selling them- selves to the entente.” The “shame of the bourgeoisie”— because of the loss of the Zeppelin works! The “shame of the bourge- oisie” because Germany will no longer be able to build Zeppelins! And when the Zeppelin arrived in America, Lore celebrated it with a broad scareline in the Volkszeitung! Radek was perfectly right: Lore is still a nationalist, Social-democracy Still Rampant. In this period of the decay of cap- italism, the social-democrats not only fail to lead the workers into action against the capitalists and capitalist state, but in keeping with their cowar- dice and treachery, speak well of the bourgeoisie and refuse to attack the enemies of the revolution. Unfortunately we have to record that in the Workers (Communist) Party there are remnants of this ide- ology and Comrade Lore is one of its most outspoken exponents. A man the name of Louis Simon died recent- ly. Simon was a socialist, a member of the cigarmakers’ union and of the Volkszeitung Konferenz, and viciously fought the Communists at every stage. Lore knew this as well as anybody else. Yet in the Nov. 17 issue of thé Volkszeitung we find an obituary con- taining the following. “Simon did not always share our ideas especially in the last two years, byt he was a staunch man—a man 0 always sup- ported a good cause and was always on the job when it was necessary to help it along.” Evidently in the mind of Lore, to fight Communism is a “goood cause”—to assail the Workers Party is a “good cause On Sep. 24, there appeared in the Volkszeitung an article by Kautsky, entitled “The Question of the War Blame.” In this article Kautsky at- tempts to prove that the social-demo- crats were not responsible for betray- ing the international, but on the con- trary succumbed to the deception of the German kaiser. Innocent politi- cians who “took a position’ only against Austria and not against the policies of the German government,” sion of the Executive Committee of the Comintern should be so inter- preted as if the Executive Commit- tee puts the banner ofthe executive in- to the hands of Lore and should say that he represents the point of view of the executive. This is merely i. coincidence.” There are American comrades, de- fenders of Lore, who maintain that Lore was a Communist in his an- tagonism to the war. Let us see if his. nationalism has so completely vanished—even at the present time. On November 19, Lore had an edit- orial in the Volkszeitung entitled “The Belated Pardon.’ In this article Lore states: “The pardon granted the French ex-premier Joseph Cailleux and—in less measure that granted ex-minis- ter Louis Malvy by both houses of parliament is a correction of an in- just act committed in the heat and hatred of the war, even if it comes very late... . “Joseph Cailleaux represented for nearly twenty years that movement in France which sought a rapproche- ment with Germany in order to- gether with the German empire to question the world ‘supremacy of Great Britain.” (Emphisis mine.) Lore evidently has a notion of bourgeois justice, and feels that Cail- leaux, who was a “liberal”, was treat- ed unjustly by Clemenceau. We Com- munists in the laughable role of de- fending the liberals against the re- actionaries! But the crux of the situa- tion is that Cailleaux was for a “rap- prochement” with Germany, in order together with her to secure the heg- emony of the world. This is the in- nate nationalism in Lore, which Ra- dek was perfectly justified in charg- ing him with. Despite their militant opposition to the war, the motive of Lore and his followers was not a Com- munistic, but a Germaa, patriotic one. because they “were deceived by the German government in the belief that Germany had no hand in Austrian pol- icies, that she was mediating between Austria and Russia and in this activ- ity in the interest of peace, was at- tatkéa by the czar.” Lore declares that he placed a foot- note in the issue explaining the rea- son for publishing the article. But Lore always has bad luck: things just happen in the Volkszeit . Only three weeks later, after the real Com- munists in the German federation pro- tested against the publication of an article by the renegate Kautsky in the Volkszeitung, did the footnote appear. And what does Lore say in the foot- note? He too, wishes to prove that the social-democrats did not act from innate cowardice and treachery, but were deceived by the German kaiser! In other words, he practically iden- tifles himself with Kautsky! Lore, the “Communist!” ‘ The Crown of Lore’s Treachery Lore’s attitude to the Communist International as revealed in his article on the fifth anniversary of the Comin- tern in March, is duplicated in the following paragraph from an article in the Volkszeitung on Dec, 12, 1924, entitled “Dark Clounds Are Rising on the World Firmament.” This article deals with the charges of the Herriot government that the Communists in- tend to overthrow the government. In the midst of this article Lore writes: “ ... The Communists not only repudiated the nonsense attrib- uted to them, but at the same time proved how little their ostensible in- tentions of overthrowing the govern- ment would serve the interests ‘Moscow,’ which is supposed to directing them. If the Soviet ernment, as is constantly being tended by the capitalist press, is ing great hopes in obtaining a of be naturally do nothing to nip these hopes in the bud.” These statements need no comment -rthey come from the “Communist” Lore! What did Comrade Zinoviev say in the Presidium of the Communist In- ternational when the American ques- tion was before the Presidium? s . Now as regards Lore. From what I have read he proves that he is by no means a Communist. I really do not know whether he belongs in the central execitive committee. In the resolution we have said that very politely. Perhaps we will be compel- led to tell it-to him less politely. The fact that Lore was against the sup- port of LaFollette is of no moment. We know the manners of the social- democrats who hide behind some bar- ricades, who\say they’are against the work among the farmers—because they are orthodox Marxians. The American Party will find ways and By JACK BRADON. HY does the majority oppose a farmer-labor party now, when it admits that the material conditions are substantially as they were, when the majority, was in favor of such a party?. Does not Marx warn, those who care to heed: That it is upon the material conditions of the work- ing class that the policies of a revo- lutionary party must rest, and not upon the illusions of the mass? How does the blabbering of the majority offered us, as an excuse for its thesis and action, reconcile with. the prac- ticability of Marx and Lenin? In one breath they tell us that the material conditions ‘are not only as tense as they were, when the major- ity was for an F. L. P., but that these conditions are growing worse; in the next breath we are told that there is no demand for a F. L. P. because LaFollette devoured and digested it. But they add, that there was an hon- est to goodness demand for a F. L. P. at the time that the majority favored it. Since the majority clearly shows s deviation\from Marx and Lenin, by failing to formulate its policy up- on the actual and potential conditions of the working class, let us see, what there is iff their argument that the demand for an F. L. P. is off on an indefinite vacation. What Became of This Much Talked-of Demand? 3 ‘We are told that aside from the united front decision of the C. I, and the experiences of the British C. P. —two factors were interpreted to have constituted the demand for a farmer-labor party in the United States. First, the formation of -the Cc. P. P. A.; secomt, and far more important, the manifestation of the more conscious rank and file. Let us then (aside from the material condi- tions, which in the long run must be the policy-determining factor) merely examine this demand ‘hat existed, but has now vanished. In the first place, the organization of the C. P. P. A. by labor leaders was not prompted by their craving for an F. L. P. Nor was it due to pressure from the rank and file. Had the rank and file been possessed of the pressure credited to it, it would have used that pressure upon the labor leaders, for what it considered more immediate needs. That is, it would have made those leaders put up an aggressive fight for wages and hours. Neither was the pressure of the rank and file of such moment as to drive these leaders towards the organization of the C. P. P. A. as a blindfold to ward off such pressure. Even a brief examination of the railroad brotherhoods which consti. tute the backbone of the C. P. P. A. will easily convince anyone that none of those leaders were in any danger from the rank and file, on the cont- rary, they were all firmly seated in the saddle of leadership of their re- spective unions, The C. P. P. A. was organized principally as a center where some of the quarreling labor leaders could be united upon the is- sue: as to who was a friend, or an enemy of labor, so as to pun ish or reward them according: that is, to make more effective that non-partisan policy so dear to them; also to eliminatefl if posible, the growing habit of squabbling between the labor leaders, because of their political infringements upon each oth- er. It was an alliance of labor lead- ers, each seeking to strengthen him- self. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE IDEOLOGICAL OR REPRESENTA- TIVE MAKE-UP OF THE C. P. P. A. TO HAVE WARRANTED INTER- PRETING ITS FORMATION AS A DEMAND FOR AF. L. P. In a word, the C. P. P. A. have no intention of forming a F. L. P. This is corrorbor- ated by the fact that it hopefully wait- ed for the democratic party to nom- inate McAdoo, or for the republican party to nominate some other fake pregressive, Had this been done, the C. P. P. A. would be no more. C. P, P. A. and the Labor Party. To that, the C. P, P. A, consti- tuted one of the demands for a F. L. P. in 1922-23-24, when it was not pressed from below, when it could have swung in back of any republican or democrat, without fear of national effective rank and file opposition, and means of stating openly what is the trouble with Lore.” The trouble with Lore is that he is no Communist. This is not a manifes- tation of today or yesterday. Lore has shown a consistent opposition to the ideas of the Communist International, in his support of Serrati, Levi, his criticism of the Comintern and of Zinoviev—in his utterances on ques- tions arising in the United States, in his conception of what a Communist Party should be and do. This the Communist International knew and knows. This the majority of the C. E. C. knows or should know—unless it believes that Lore is a Communist. What has the majority of the C. -E. C.—who are the C. E. C.—done in car- rying out the decisions of the Presid- ium of the Communist International, namely in carrying on an “ideological campaign” against Lore-and his fol- lowers, who are “remnants of the Two- and-a-half-International” in our party? THE PECULIAR LOGIC OF THE MAJORITY of a promise to its followers to create a party in 1925, is to be contrary to facts. The only real basic demand that existed in 1922-23-24 for a F. L. P.—a class F. L. P., has not vanished, as the majority contends. trary, it has been strengthened. To deny that what ever pressure existed from below, still exists for a F. L. P., is to say that our two years or 80, of agitation thru the T. U. E. L., etc., for a F. L. P., has not only failed to increase that pressure, but has in some mysterious way wiped it out en- tirely. Who Guides the C. E. C. Majority Policy? The majority does not admit it, still its attitude shows: plainly; that it is not the needs or the demands of the rank and file that it gauges the situation by, but rather, by the mood of a few labor fakers. Here we see: First, that the material conditions are favorable to the continuation of. the farmer-labor slogan. Secondly, that the only basic demand most worthy of heeding—that of the partly disillusioned portion of the rank and --.~..--.ay, January 7, 1925 Tasks could have been formed in the Unit- ed States at this time. Now that the majority had its crude awaken- ing, that it found that an all-inclusive party could not be formed at this time, it proceeds to disown the idea of a united front upon the political field. In a word, when it found that a hot stove could not be sat upon, it proceeds to rid itself of the stove. But the stove is still good, it will still respond to proper handling.’ The struggle is still on! The former la- bor united front is still useful if prop- erly applied. To assume as the C. E. C. majority did, that an all-inclusive movement can be had at this early stage of revo- lutionary development, in the coun- try, is to misunderstand the first ele- mentary factors of the American movement. By its actions the ma- jority has shown that it thought an “all-inclusive” party could be formed in 1924. What are the facts? Did not the majority understand that the organized labor movement was, and is in the control of agents of capital- ism (conscious or unconscious)? Did the majority not understand that the Cc. P. P. A. together with LaFollette, even if they were willing to form a F. L. P., (which they were not) would have not consented to any sort of a coalition with the Workers (Commun- ist) Party! paricularly if it involved criticize. We could not have accept- ed a united front without that con- dition. Did not the majority understand that the only thing that could have been done under the circumstances, was to concentrate upon the forma- tion of a party, a class party, only of such elements that are close enough to us as not to fear us? No! They did not understand all of this. They started out to form an allin- clusive farmer-labor party. In their short sightedness they discount- On the con-|our inviolable Communist right to \ ed the hold upon the wide masses » by the labor leaders, and LaFollette. Is it not known to the majority that in England where the labor party is based upon the trade union moveve- ment, which in turn accepts officially the existence of the class struggle, even there, the Communist Party is still knocking at the door of the labor party for admittance. To assume that an all-inclusive la- bor party could have been formed in the United -States in 1924, simply means that the majority blindfolded itself to the facts in the case. It assumed first, that our own party was ideologically so fortified, as to be beyond contamination no matter how opportunistically our C. BE. C. majority maneuvered us. In the sec- ond place, it utterly failed to under- Front From Top, stand its field of operation. It un- What comrade, who lays claim to|derestimated the control of the labor the most elementary knowledge of| leaders and fake progressives over the Communist movement will not| the great bulk of the organized work- readily admit that, the Fitzpatricks,|¢rs and poorer farmers. In a word, Mahoneys, ete., are not to be relied|the two most elementary and indis- file is still here. The only difference that has caused such a suddén and complete change of heart in the majority, is the fact that Mahoney, Fitzpatrick, Cramer, and a few others of their stripe do not happen to be in the proper mood now, that they are not for a united front with the Communists. This ap- pears to be the ‘only reason for the majority’s attitude toward a F. L. P. Cc. E. C. Majority Worships United upon? Who does not know that this|Pensible needs of generalship, name- element works with us only, as long|!y, to know the strength and. morale as we do not challenge their leader-|0f one’s own forces as well as that ship and do not in any way show our|0f the enemy, were either not consi- Communist face? Still, it is upon|dered at all by the majority (who them that the majority bases its con-|were for an all-inclusive party or clusions, and not upon the prevalent |nothing at all), or élse their judg- and potential economic and political|ment is anything but judgment. conditions, or the temper of the rank and file. The majority reminds one of a child who sat on a hot stove, as a en at oes oa On the 21st of January the workers badly burned. The child immediate-|t#@ World over will hold memorial ly concluded that the stove was no|™ectings for Nicolai Lenin, the good and should be disposed of. It| leader and fighter for the liberation never occurred to the child that, tho, | the laboring masses. In connection the stove was not a suitable thing to| With these memorial meetings, on sit upon, it was still useful, if em-| Thursday, Jan. 15, a moving picture, ployed for those purposes for which | “In Memoriam—Lenin,” will be shown it was made. in the Gartner’s Independent Theatre, InMemoriam-Lenin The majority became badly con-|3725 Roosevelt Road. Two other pic taminated with the illusion that at|tures will also be shown: “Pollkush- »” and “Soldier Ivan’s Miracle.” one sweep an all-inclusive F. L. P. SSIS SSS SSS Sess sees sss ses rs, “Revolution Comes!” evolution 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 country— You can have on fine calendar stock, mounted on art board suitable for framing and without cost WITH A YEAR'S SUBSCRIPTION TO THE WORKERS MONTHLY $2.00 a Year $1.25 Six Months 25 CENTS EACH WITHOUT SUBSCRIPTION THE WORKERS MONTHLY 1113 W. Washington Bivd. Chichgo, 111. SL , (Mark with cross) “s For WORKERS MONTHLY (1 year) and picture nimnennnnnse * FOP rvvsrssssorssrrrssrronrsvereereslCODOB Of DUCUTC::.srreccceoorrceserrerserorsrseessssetisosorininne NAMB ecsscscssscssssosssssnssunsnssaseosossoosssoosssesnssnsnssonssooosonsssnnnaascossossseseeessessenesssenesoens BT REET essessssssossssssesseorsseeseosnnnnsnssonssessncseoensessonennanessssssssssessssvonsssssenseaasseeeaag STAT Bssssssssserssesivecennsce OU sccpilnlic : ‘