The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 8, 1925, Page 4

fy Page Four Oeste Notes on the “Marxian Trunk” and, Primarily, on the Marxian Root of Our Party. By MOISSAYE J. OLGIN. “W" are the Marxists of the party,” says the minority. “We are its Marxian trunk.” Tt ie easy to confess Marxism. But Marxism is not a confession of faith. Marxism is even more than a set of| doctrines. Marxism is the only sci- entific method of investigating social matters. To be a Marxist means, not only to have read “Das Kapital” and & few other books, but to be able to apply the Marxian analysis to living and therefore continually changing | who knows} social conditions. He how to apply this analysis correctly, and whose correctness of analysis has been proven by subsequent events, is true Marxist. He who only mimicks the methods of Marxism, he whose | conclusions are being repudiated by the course of events, is a pseudo. Marxist. This little essay wishes to suggest that the leader of the minority, John Pepper, is a pseudo-Marxist. We have chosen John Pepper be- cause ft an open secret that he is still the moving spirit of the minority group. If the minority calls itself the Marxian trunk, then John Pepper is certainly the main Marxian root. If the root is hollow, then there is some thing the matter with the trunk. How did John Pepper apply the ‘Marxian analysis to conditions in the United States? It must be remarked that the application of Marxism to history in the making, is Leninism “If we wish, comrades, to define what is Leninism,” said N. K. Kroupskaya the widow of the late Lenin, in an ad- dress before the teachers of Leninism mobilized to instruct the “Lenin En. rollment,” “we must say that it is Marxism applied to contemporary realities.” How, then, did John Pep- per practice Leninism in this coun- try? Let us take only one or two in- stances. At the Chicago convention of July 3-5, 1923, the federated farmer. labor party was proclaimed as exist: ing. Was it a real party? Did it have a solid foundation? Was it a logical outcome of ripening conditions among the working masses? Subsequent events have proven that it had no solid foundation, that it was an artificial contrivance. A year after July 3-5, the F. F. L. P. was thoroly forgotten. Six months after its com- ing into nominal being, it was hardly more than a name and a wish. This proves beyond dispute that it was a still.born organization. What was the duty of a Marxist after the formation of that so-called party? Plainly, it was incumbent upon him to give an adequate estimation of what had hap- pened, to analyze the forces that were operating around the party, to have a realistic understanding of the new, organization, and thus to indicate a correct attitude for the Workers (Communist) Party. Did John Pepper make such an an- alysis? True, he used all the phrase- ology of Marxism. But this is what he found: “Summed up in a single phrase, the historic significance of the July 3 convention is this: The first real mass party of American workers and farmers has been founded in Chicago.” “The new F. F. L. P. is a mass party. It is the first mass party of workers and farmers in the United States.” “The new F. F. L. P. is no arti. ficial product of a mass doctrine, but is the result of a special Ameri- can development.” “It is a party of rank and file.” This is how John Pepper estimated the new organization. That his esti- mation was entirely erroneous, en- tirely subjective, i. e. entirely non- Marxian, is evident from the total disappearance of the F. F. L. P., from its non-existing at the present time. A “real party,” a “mass party,” @ “result of a special American de velopment,” a “party of rank and file” does not disappear within six months. Plainly, John Pepper gave an expression of his ardent wish, not of the actualities of American politi- cal life. Plainly he did‘ something entirely opposed to Marxism. But maybe he only made propa ganda among the members of the ‘Workers Party? Maybe he person- ally knew the truth-about the F. F, L, P. Maybe he wrote as he did only to fire the imagination of the Com. munists in this country in order that they might devote themselves the more diligently to the building of the new party? If this were the case, it ‘would be worse than the grossest er- ror of estimation, because nothing is more injurious to the cause of Com: munism than misleading the workers as to the character of the organiza tion they have to deal with. However, it appears that John Pep- per actually believed the F. F. L. P. to be “a real mass party of American workers and farmers.” This is evi. dent from the fact that he broad: casted his findings all over the C. I. thru the medium of the International Press Correspondence (Inprecor, July % Pvt that he either failed to understand America, or he failed to understand what is a real mass party. At any rate he proved to be less of a Marx: ist and more of the type that Lenin admonished in the following words: “Less political clatter. Less intel- lectual reasoning. Nearer to life.” | (Article “On the character of our pa. | pers.”) John Pepper not only mace the mis- take of heralding the lifeless organ- ization as the mass party of Ameri- can workers and farmers, but he per- sisted in his mistake. For months in succession, even as late as March, 1924, when the F. F. L. P. was nc more than a shadow, he continued to view the future leadership of the Workers Party in the class.struggle |as based on the non-existant F. F. L. |P. So styong is the influence of John |Pepper’s mistakes on the present minority of our C. E. C., that its latest thesis still invokes the ghost of the |F. F. L. P. and it still asserts that the | Workers Party could have made the |F. F. L. P. a living thing if it wished to do so. Strange conception for THE DAILY WORKER Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks MARXISM OR PSEUDO-MARXISM? such Immense migrations, such deep changes in the manner of living of such great masses of people could take place in the short period of three years. . . It was a gigantic task to stir up the non-political con- servative mass of American workers, farmers and colored slaves; but capi- talism has succeeded in performing this miracle. Politics today has be. come a mass occupation. The basis of American conservative democracy was the inert mass of farmers. This basis is now collapsing. The last sure reverse of capitalism in America was the eight million Negroes in the south. This last reserve is in the act of deserting it.. . The workers are beginning to organize politically. The {bankrupt farmers are overthrowing the most sacred fundamental law of capitalism, cash-payments, and do not pay their debts. The Negroes in the south*are making an unarmed Sparta cus uprising.” Does it not look like a veritable revolution? Indeed it does. So it was understood by John Pepper him- self who in the October, 1923, Libera- tor, in an article “Shall we Assume Leadership?” speaks of the “more and more imminent revolutionary crisis Marxists. A small party, numbering|!ooming up.” An imminent revolu- a score of thousand members, could| tionary crisis is understood in the have created a greater party number-| Communist International in one way ing at least hundreds of thousands! And vice versa: A mass party, “a real mass party of workers and farm- ers,” springing from “special Ameri- can development,” ceased to exist be. cause a small party, avowedly not a mass party, failed to send out a few organizers and speakers to help it. If this be a . Marxian conception, what, then, is the voluntaristic con- ception which was fought against by Marx-Lenin, and how far is it from the theory of “heores and masses?” But let us return to John Pepper, John Pepper knew very well that it is the dyty of the Communists to lead the workers. He knew it asa doc- trine. He also realized that it is necessary for the American Commun: ists to lead the American workers. Out of this theoretical realization sprang his conviction that the Work. ers Party is already leading the work- ing masses. In numbers of articles and theses he stressed the idea that America had reached a stage where the workers were just looking for the Communists to lead them. This may seem preposterous after the experi- ences of June 17, July 4 and the elec- tion campaign of 1924, but this is what John Pepper told the Commun- ist International in an article, “The Workers Party at a Turning Point” (Inprecor, Sept. 27, 1923.): “The laboring masses of the U. | S. consider the Communists as their leaders, and they expect us to show them the best ways and means of fighting against the capitalists and the capitalist government.” When a Communist makes * such statements before the Communist In. ternational they can have only one meaning: that the popularity of the Communists and their party is wide- spread among the non-partisan work- ers, that the non-partisan workers have gropingly come to the realiza. tion of the necessity of combatting the capitalist government, and that it is up to the Communists to throw out slogans and take the lead. Tested by the situation of September, 1923, and by subsequent developments, such statements appear to be a bombastic phrase. It is against such statements that Stalin warns in his book “On Lenin and Leninsm.” “As against ‘revolutionary’ eonsitst clangor,” he writes, “Lenin empha- sized the simple everyday affairs, thus making it clear that ‘revolution- ary’ fiction was contrary both to the spirit and the letter of true Leninism. ‘Less. luxurious phrases, says Lenin, more simple everyday work . Less political clatter, more attention to the simplest but living facts of Communist contructive work’ (Article ‘Great Beginning’).” But how is it that John Pepper could make such elementary errors in Marxian judgment? It is because his entire conception of American life was as he wished to see it and not as it appeared in reality. John Pepper, the supposed Marxist, the man that still holds the C. E. C. minority under his sway, lived in a world of illusions. Wherein lies the strength of Marx- ism? In its adherence to reality of social life, in its ability to analyze the facts of social life so as to find the law of their development, so as to be able to forecast the main lines of the future. “Theory does not form an independent kingdom,” says the Russian Marxian philosopher, Debor in, in his book, “Lenin as a Thinker.” “Theory that stands the test of prac tice is objective truth, We should not confine ourselves to objects that exist in our heads, Marx taught us, but we must deal with concrete ob- jects.” The following quotation should suf- fice to prove that John Pepper con- fined himself to “objects that existed in his head” and that those objects erican life. In his article “Facing the Third American Revolution” (in the become a stirring fact in the United 1923, article by John Pepper, | States: “Never before in the world’s First Party of American Work | history,” he writes, “not even in cap- history, has it happened that] the claime by the coal Hiei only; it means what the words imply: who always knows how to reckon with real life, who knows how tocom- bine theory with practice, a slogan with the modes of realizing it in life, who combines the greatest revolution: ary passion with the greatest coolness in estimating the forces of the fight- ing parties and classes” (“Lenin and His Party,” p. 86.) If this is Leninism, then what are Pepper's declamations? The generous reader may try and excuse him on the ground that even a Leninist may sometimes be mistaken. This is true But John Pepper was too often mis- taken, he was too deepiy mistaken and he never acknowledged mistakes which is again contrary to true Len. inism. The above article, “Facing the Third American Revolution,” which ir America appeared in September, and was written in August, 1923, was in its main parts reprinted by Pepper in the Moscow “Pravda” -at the time when the Fifth Congress of the C. I. was in session, that is to say, in June, 1924, ten months after its first appear: ance. In the summer of 1924 John Pepper still saw the imminent revolu- tion which he saw in the summer of 1923. Nothing had changed for Pep. per, only this, that to the general an- alysis of American socio. political life he added in the “Pravda” the follow- ing paragraph: a great upheaval of large masses against the foundations of capitalism. Now, we know that the minority will label an attack on such mislead. ing declaration as “non-revolution ary, as failure to see the deer changes wrought in American life by the war, as living in the pre-war mentality. To this we beg to reply that if there are in our party some embers who see no changes in capi. ism since 1914 and who do not realize the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system (such people repre: sent the remnants of the S. P. psych- ology in our party), this does not jus- tify blundering in the opposite direc- tion. One is just as bad as the other. Neither is real Leninism. “Viadimir Ilyitch,” says Kamanev, “may be called the profoundest real. ist, the man of the soil, ie. a man By ELLA REEVE BLOOR. Just a word for the-majority thesis. Have been so busy, in California, helping in an organizational way, to create a “united front” of workers on the problem of unemployment. which is assuming huge proportions here, that I have only now a free moment to state a few practical reasons for supporting the majority thesis. 1. There is no national farmer-la bor party in America, therefore, we cannot “back it up,” or “permeate” something that does not exist. 2. We are creating a Communist Party, and should not confuse our ef- forts by also “creating” a farmer-_la- bor party. 3. The slogan “For a Workers’ and Farmers’ Government” used by our party everywhere during our cam- paigns, and in our educational work, attracted the farmers and workers and also emphasized the fundamental prin- ciples of a united front class party of farmers and workers. When the farmer-labor party, so- cialist. party, etc., deserted a class party at Cleveland, it happened that I was serving as state secretary of the “united front”—independent labor party of Colorado. This party had called a state convention to nominate state candidates and had endorsed MacDonald and Buck. When, he news came of the endorsement of ‘La! Follette, and the action of the Work- ers Party in nominating Foster and -|Gitlow, a special “called” meeting war held, the matter fairly put before the membership, and an unqualified en- dorsement was given the national Workers’ Party candidates. Two weeks later the entire socialist party (with but one exception) joined the Work- ers Party; and later, all but two of the members of other organizationr joined the Workers Party. A ful’ ticket for governor, U. S. senator, twc seats in congress and members of state senate legislature, was filed and a vigorous campaign was carried on, under the slogans “Vote Communist’ and “For a Workers’ and Farmers’ Government.” In the strenuous campaign waged in the middle west, it was my good fortune to work in forty different towns and cities, viz, Milwaukee, troit, Chicago, Gary, St. Louis, south. ern Illinois mine districts, etc. Many LEFT WING OF AUSTRALIAN LABOR MOVEMENT ORGANIZES FOR ACTION SYDNEY, Australia, Jan. 7—The left wing movement of Australian workers held a conference at Sydney to unite all radical working class groups. he proclaimed to be the reality of Am.| An organization was set up and an executive appointed. Militant demands for workers were decided upon, Liberator of September, 1923) he| Minimum wage of $30 per week, and a 6-hour day of five days, and reinstate- speaks of the revolution as having}| ment of all workers victimized as the result of strikes. The conference demanded the latest scientific devices of trade union officials to access to all jobs. The conference also supports “And last but not least, for the first time in the history of the United States there appears on the scene a Communist Party, which has its roots in the masses and is not a sect, A MASS COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE WORKING CLASS.” He did not know we had already a mass Communist Party. He must be grateful to John Pepper for discover- ing it. But while all these statements, only show how Marxian analysis should not be made, the last one throws a strange light on the slogan of a “class farmer-labor party” appearing in the minority thesis. If our goal of a mass Communist Party has already been achieved, why not utilize part of our spare energy to build a new “class farmer-labor party?” A Word for the Majority Thesis from the West miners had “LaFollette clubs,” it ic true, but the “Progressive Miners” also functioned, and I found by prac: tical éxperience that no camouflage was necessary to hold the interest and respect of the workers for our slogar and our straight, revolutionary class party. In fact, in places like Milwau- kee, where the socialists so grossly betrayed the workers, we held hun dreds of workers in front of shops like International Harvesters and Al- lis Chalmers Co., at noon time, rally. ing around our banners with Foster and Giltlow’s large pictures, the slo- gans “Vote Communist” and “For a Workers’ and Farmers’ Govern- ment”—and they did this right in front of their bosses, and shop stool- pigeons—and the LaFollette socialists couldn’t hold their interest at all. That’s the reason the socialist gov- ernment of Milwaukee broke up two wonderful Workers Party meetings and arrested me and took me to their “socialist” city hall for “investiga tion.” The, majority thesis urges the™slo- gan, and the principle of working for a “united front” on working class emergencies now confronting us—un. employment, child labor, etc. The majority thesis also calls for “Com. munist Organizational Education” ong, farmers, and the establishment lof’& Farmers’ press, This is one of the most vital parts of the thesis. Or- ganizers among farmers MUST under- stand the farmers’ problems. In other words, they SHOULD be farmers. We would not, if sane, in our party work send a farmer to organize and educate union men and women: and a party paper for farmers must not repeat our former mist@®e of publishing dry theses, etc., for men who have press ing class problems of a different na ture. So instead of working merely for a slogan, I would suggest that both the minority and the majority push harder for a real farmers press as formulated in thé majority thesis. We do not need speculate about the action of the munist Party in the future. If the farmers and workers SHOULD desire a class farm. er-labor party of their own, there is no doubt that Communist tactics will De- | still be used by us, and that the Com: munist party will adapt itself to new demands of workers and farmers. These include a in the mining industry, and the right Majority at Work in Minnesota— Or LaF ollette. Communists in Action By JACK BRADON. ‘HE majority tells us that the farmer-labor party has been tried and failed. How could it be otherwise in face of the counthless unforgivable mistakes that were made? The grav. est mistake was the illusion that, at one sweep an all-inclusive party could be created at this early stage of revolutionary development in this country. It will quite readily be ad- mitted by anyone informed on the matter, that only a thin sprinkling of the working class is disillusioned, and that the great bulk of them are still under the influence of American de- mocracy. Is there another country in the whole civilized world where the workers would help sweep into Power a Calvin Coolidge after his administration’s corruptness had been 80 clearly shown? Does not this show the backward- ness of the erican proletariat? Is it not clear now, that our temporary goal should ligve been and should be today, the rallying thru the farmer-la- bor slogan tthat partly disillusioned a portion of the proletariat, so that from this element we could not only build our mass Communist Party by selecting the best of them for our ranks, but also utilize such a farmer- labor party as a weapon against the LaFollettes, whom the majority pro- poses that we let alone. Majority’s LaFollette Communism in Practice, Another misfake, a non-Communist mistake was our united front from the top. The majority talks much about the “bottom.” But what are its acts? Minnesota offers a unique illustration of the majority’s concept of a united front from the bottom. Here in Min- nesota, the so much “bragged” about united front really consisted of the Workers (Communist) Party, its orig: inal sympathizers and followers anda few labor mis-lealers. This is proven conclusively by the fact that when we broke with Mahoney, Cramer, et. al., as every good Communist knew we would have to break, the bottom fell out of the united front. Who will deny, that during the so. called maneuvers here in Minnesota, not a move was made by-the district party rulers without consulting those labor fakers? The party here did not own its own soul. To breathe even, it had to have the permission of these fakers. Last March, the writer pro- tested vigorously against the tactics of subordinating the party to the whim of thise labor fakers. At the timie when the eyes of the workers and farmers were focused upon oar party, was the time we praised and strengthened, not our Communist stand, but those few labor skates who are today our bitterest enemies. As a matter of fact, not only did we strengthen our present enemies in the eyes of the workers and farmers here, but in the eyes of our sympa thizers, potential members and even our own members. Early last spring when the writer insisted to the party here in Minnesota, that we should not build the fences of the labor fakers any stronger, because, before very long, it would be our task to break down those famous fences, Comrades of the district committee were so in- fluenced by our boosting of Mahoney and his candidate for governor, Dr. Schaper (who by the way shortly afterward repudiated the Commun. ists), that they sneeringly charged the writer with being “to suspicious.” They said that Mahoney, Cramer and even LaFollette would not break with us, Today we are confronted here with the task of breaking down those fences which we helped build unneces- sarily. Both Mahoney and Cramer are our bitterest enemies, In face of these facts, the present lip service of the majority about a united front m the bottom becomes meaningless blabber. Anyone can talk. It is the actions of a Communist that count. Cc. E. C. Majority Hasn't a Leg to Stand On. ‘We have seen, even by the few crudely put facts, contained herein: Virst, that the minority started out to accomplish the impossible; namely, the all-inclusive farmer-labor party; second, they could ‘not appraise the strength and morale of their own party. Third, that they underestimat- ed the strength of the enemy—that is, the influence of the labor fakers upon the masses, Fourth, that what. ever temporary united front they had established, was exclusively from the top. Under these considerations, it becomes evident that only a miracle (in which Communists do not believe) could have saved us from all those mistakes and have giyen us a farmer- labor party. Despite this fact, the majority does not in a true Commun- (st spirit admit its mistakes, which in its own heart, it knows it has made. On the contrary it feebly attempts to justify its behavior. Lenin has warned us against such an attitude as now characterizes the majority. Because their illusions did not prove realities, hence their opposition to a farmer-labor party. When a man falls off a horse, breaks a bone or more, the reaction causes him to be more cautious in the future; that horses are no good and must be gotten rid of. It does not occur to the impractical mind that such a mis- hap might have been due to his own corelessness and lack of understand. ing as to the habits and disposition of the horse. Nor does it occur to him that all horses are not-alike. Cc. E. C. Majority Loses Vision. The majority fails to understand the basis of its own reaction to the farmer-labor party and hence expects the workers and farmers to react with it. But a short while ago, the ma- jority favored a farmer-labor party. Why? Because such a party offered a rallying point: for numerous ele- ments whom we are trying to reach. Suddenly the reacting mentality of the majority, pictures those elements as having been revolutionized over- night, and are now ready to come in- to the Workers Party direct. You of the majority say to-us to urge the workers to join our party. Very fine! Nothing against that. But can’t you see that there is nothing to prevent us from_urging and taking in to our ranks those workers who are ready to come in, even under the farmer- labor slogan? Under your proposal this is where we stop. In this connection let us not re- main indifferent to the fact that the organized workers are but a portion of the working class and that as a rule during periods of normal employ- ment the labor movement was as @ rule able to catch up numerically with its losses incurred during periods of unemployment. Are you not aware of the fact that the last two periods of normal employment have failed to replace the gaps made in the organ- ized labor movement while unemploy- ment was prevalent? Do you not realize, that some of our attention must be given to the unor- ganized? Well, you will say the shop nuclei will serve as a point of contact with the unorganized. We reply that you know, and we ‘know, that it would take some years before an effective shop nuclei system is de- Political en Thursday, January 8, 1925 veloped in this country, therefore, to depend only upon the shop nuclei for united front maneuvers in the imme- diate future, is to depend upon .some- thing that does not exist, and which Wwill_not for a time be developed. What Shall The Party Do? The C. IL, has reaffirmed its stand on the united front. We of the minority hold that the continuance of the F. L. P. slogan can effectively be applied in the immediate future around which to rally both organized and unorgan- ized workers. The material condi- tions will lend momentum to our slo- gan. We cannot permit LaFollette to take the leadership of the masses un- challenged. It would be a crime at this time, when several million workers and farmers are on the move to the left as evidenced by the La- Follette vote, for us, the Workers (Communist) Party, the only revolu- tionary organization in this country, the only defender and spokesman for the interests of the working class, to remain indifferent while the LaFol- lette “machine” is tightening its grip upon those workers, many thousands of whom are even now susceptible to propaganda for a class F. L. P, How will we face these poor farm- ers and workers in the future, if we assume an attitude of “either come into the Workers (Communist) Par- ty or we want nothing.to do with you?” The masses as a rule move slowly from right to, left. It is the Communist duty to encourage and hasten such movement, for after all, it is upon the impetus of such a move- ment that the building of a mass Com- munist Party depends. The majority is going to build a mass party, ir- Tespective of the movement of the masses. They are again proposing to send the party off on a tangent. Their diagnosis of the situation is bad, and the cure they propose is in- finitely worse. The present outlook in the light of past experiences, shows clearly (to those who want to see) that the eco- nomic and political stage is so being set, as to hake possible the formation of a class farmer-labor party of suffi- cient proportion. Let us go forth to such a party while keeping intact and strengthening our own party; never losing sight of our Communist goal. HOW A COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIP MEETING SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED By JOSEPH SIMINOFF, Ty okra: Be letter is to point out how a Communist meet- ing should not be conducted. There must be something rotten in Denmark when the central executive commit- tee majority must resort to character assassination and cheap burlesque comedy stunts to refute the correct- ness of the central executive commit- tee minority thesis, instead of putting up Communist defense for the majority thesis. Comrade Browder, the C. E. C, majority representative, consumed one hour misrepresenting and maliciously misinterpreting the thesis of the C. E. C. minority. He then proceeded to belittle and besmirch the characters of the C. E. C. minority members. For an example, as a supposedly sur- prise and possibly intended for the strongest argument for the majority thesis, Comrade Browder frantically waved in the air Comrade Lovestone’s book, “The Government—Strike- breaker,” yelling with certainty that everyone could hear him that this book is a non-Communist piece of work. He did not dare to read one single sentence from the book to sub- stantiate this untruth. He then spent five minutes apologizing for the C. EB. C. majority attitude towards the Second-and-a-Half International as represented by Comrade Lore in the party. : Comrade Engdahl, the C. BE. C. minority representative, used the same amount of time in a real Com- munist fashion to clarify in the minds of the comrades the importance and need to the Communist movement of America the slogan of the farmer- labor party. In a real Leninist way he clearly pointed out the political and economic situation in this country and how the united front slogan of -e farmer-labor party could be used by the Workers Party to god advantage. Comrade Engdahi hurled back to the C. E. C. majority the charges of opportunism that they are accusing the Bolshevik group of the party with. The presentation of Comrade Eng- dahl was not only praised by mem- bers of the minority, but also by a number of members of the majority, The reason why they have voted with the majority I will explain later on. The discussion disclosed the ele- ments that supported the majority thesis: 1. Comrades who express them- selves as opposed to the united front farmer-labor party slogan under any condition, 2. Comrades of the Jewish branch who are followers of Comrade Lon- don (Second-and-a-Half International element in the Jewish federation). 8. The solid Finnish branch which comprises half of the membership of Local Buffalo. The Buffalo vote was 81 for the majority and 31 for the minority. Of the 81 votes cast for the majority there were approximately 62 Finnish votes. Some of these Finnish com- rades who voted for the majority praised the speech of Comrade Hng- dahl, but asked why they have voted for the majority stated that they did not dare to oppose the instructions of their federain contained in Comrade Burman’s letter which was send to every Finnish branch. It was surprising to note that in spite of the fact that the majority claim to represent the trade union element im the party, that the most active members in the local trade unions and the Central Labor Council have supported the minority. Comrade Campbell, who is secretary of his Jocal union and also a member of the Central Labor Council. He was a mem- ber of the N. E. C. of the F. F. L. P. and one of the signers of the call of the June 17 convention. Comrade Raymond, also a member of the Cen- tral Labor Council and chairman of thé Local T. U. E. L. Comrade Sog- vi, another member of the Central Labor Council and active in the T, U. EB. L. e writer, another member of the Central Labor Council and secretary of the Local T. U, EB. L., whom Comrade Foster wrote about the Labor Herald of January, 1923, in an article entitled, “The National Railroad Conference,” on page 4: “The conference was marked thruout with excellent debates. Several dele- gates from the Maintenance of Way, espesially Bailey and Siminoff, of Buffalo, distinguished themselves ‘in these ,discussions. Many delegates coming from the more aristocratic trades openly admired the able way in which these brothers, both thoro- ly posted rebels, pointed out the way to industrial unionism and the ulti- mate goal of emancipation.” The active trade unionists of Buffalo have repudiated the C, EB. C, majority er- ronneous claim that they represent the trade union element in the party, The meeting was closed by Comrade Browder by devoting the half hour supposedly to be used in rebuttal for the amusement of the children of the comrades that were présent. All that was lacking for a good circus show was the tent and a bag of peanuts. The actor was present. This was to be a membership meeting to discuss serious problems confron the American Communist movement. Com- rades, this is a sample of how a Com- munist meeting should not be con- ducted. FIRST SOUP KITCHEN IN 30 YEARS DANVILLE, was established ie Jan. 7.—After an interval of thirty years a soup kitchen the city today under the direction of i Age Leeka, pellee matron, and the local salvation army. f ¥ ore I we