The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 9, 1925, Page 3

Friday, January 9, 1925 Discussion of THE DISCUSSION IS ENDED HE discussion of the party’s immediate tasks, that has been carried on in the columns of the DAILY WORKER for the past six weeks, ends today. This Is the decision of the Central Executive Com- mittee. the Central Executive Committee. is ready. A statement summing up the discussion is being prepared by It will be published as soon as it SIX STATES AND ONE COUNTY—_ OR WHO IS LOGICAL AND WHAT ARE THE FACTS By GEORGE MAURER OMRADE RUTHENBERG says it’s “logical.” What? The busi- ness of keeping the slogan and work- ing for a class farmer-labor party. He says, in effect, ‘Oh! Mr. Majority! Look to your logic. You admit that all the conditions and reasons which made for our united front farmer- Jabor party activity in the past still remain but yet you draw the opposite conclusions to drop the slogan, etc.” Really, and oh, Comrade Ruthenberg! Did you read and understand the majority thesis, does it say that all the conditions are now the same, that the particular condition necessary, a mass sentiment for a farmer-labor party, now exists? You started this “logic” business, Comrade Ruthenberg, and then one of the minority supporters, Comrade Harold John, came along (Daily Work- er, December 10) also with the boast of logic, and said “the left wing, out- side the W. P., must be organized politically inyorder that it can be lead by anybody and the W. P. must be included in that organization so that Communists can lead.” Did you of the minority start with such an assump- tion and then try to give your thesis plausibilty by pointing to six state or- ganizations called farmer-labor parties and which you claim are against the LaFollette third prty movement and for a class farmer-labor party? To be sure your minority thesis does not go so far as Comrade John. You say that actual organization of “a farmer-labor party, fighting the class battles of tlhe workers and farm- ers” may never take place and that it is possible that the best elements can be absorbed into the Workers Party, without passing thru the stage of actual organization into a separate party. Do you affirm that the Work- “érs Party canhot lead the left wing and absorb its best elements without the slogan “fora farmer-labor party”? Or do you claim there is a mass need (viewed from a Communist stand- point) for a “class farmer-labor par- ty"? Since your thesis is .so “logical” what about your assertion that if we “abandon the united front policy pol- itically by abandoning the slogan for a class farmer-labor party, we will surrender the most effective agitation- al weapon we have for drawing the workers close to our party and build- ing the Workers Party.” Do you really mean that the sole and only united front tactic politically, is the business of working for a class farmer-labor party? No, probably you were careless in wording it, perhaps you meant “on the parliamentary field” as Comrade Wicks puts it. You do think, tho, that there is lots of sentiment “in the left wing” for a class farmer-labor As We See It from all the advance news that we can gather Tom O’Flaherty is coming in com nited Front to The First Daily Worker Birthday Party ' and since 50 cents is all one needs—besides beauty—the business WORKER is also going to be there. AND IF YOU ATTEND ae will get music, dancing, games and— onestly |— A Supper Without Charge “AAT this yell Nagiseci January 12th j IMPERIAL HALL, 2409 N. Halsted St. ny with. the editors and rinters—with whom they will present a party and therefore it is desirable to go along as before, And this, after the experience of July 3rd, 1924, the growth of the LaFollette third party movement, the disappearance of all hational farmer-labor parties, and non-development of the sentiment which had been labelled “farmer- labor,” toward a real sentiment and demand for a distinct “class” farmer- labor party. ‘ Don’t you know that the sentiment for real class political action is that of Communist sympathizers, that mass sentiment aside from this will be satisfied with a third party, speak- ing in the name of labor. Do you want us to cover up our Bolshevik “whis. kers” and with the “weapon” of the slogan “for a class farmer-labor par- ty” gather together some masses of class-conscious workers, then uncover our whiskers and have those masses say “We knew it was you all the time; why kid us?” Now about those farmer-labor parties in six states and Washington County, Pa., (and the “demand for revival” in Buffalo, N. Y.) as sufficient proof that the required mass sentiment exists, lives, and is growing as living things should. First let me say that to hear Bob Minor tell it the masses are yel- ling for a farmer-labor party. It looks like necessity was the mother of in- vention. The minority wanted to yell for it (a two year old habit) so they began hearing things—yells. Tell us your'secret, Bob, from where do you get the gift of hearing the loud yell? From the same source as you get the never-to-be abandoned “magic” slogan? Please, Comrades Ruthenberg, Be- dacht, Lovestone,. (and Wicks) in the name of Marx and Lenin, give us the dope on those farmer-labor parties in six states and one county (and Buf- falo). Show us that these “numerous” and “staunch” upholders of a farmer- labor party are spreading the germ and getting themselves, stauncher. Ex- plain how they are holding out for a class farmer labor party as against the third party movement of LaFol- lette and the C. P. P. A. against the class-collaboration, peoples govern- ment, ideas of the trade union leader- ship, aristocracy, and followers, and of the farmers. Will the “revolution- ary farmers” see to it? Or the masses of unorganized workers? Or are we (the Communists) running the unions and these six state parties and there- fore able to dictate? What's the sentiment, or demand, in the unions, farm organizations, “farm- er-labor parties,” that you are in touch with? How big is the left bloc in the labor movement that possesses a real sentiment for a real F. L. P, which you say our members in the trade unions must split away from the third party movement and crystal- ize into a farmer-labor party; that is, iJ office of the DAILY on Monday evening how much bigger than the bloc among the poorer farmers ‘(aside from Com- munist sympathizers) that you speak of in your thesis, but propose no ways to reach on the F. L. matters, Tell us, how many of these six state parties are holding together, and, if any, what is it that keeps them going, —the demand of the rank and file member—units for a mass-class or class-mass F, L, P, or the prospect seen by them and the leaders of some kind of a national third party speak- ing in the name of labor and the people? And if they amount to any- thing locally in their respective states, is it because they are genuine class farmer-labor parties? Is it not true that such are farmer-labor in name, but third party progressive in fact? Is it so desirable (if not necessary) that the left wing bloc in the labor movement be at all costs organized into a class party of ‘their own? Or so necessary to our leadership of left wing labor and farmer blocs that the slogan be kept in spite of a new situation? Is our task so helpless, otherwise? Shall we give out to the workers and farmers the impression and hope that a _ class-farmer-labor party will fight their battles, rather than the Communist Party? Is it de- sirable (or necessary) that we hide our face? Or do you insist that we wear a mask, let’s say, just for the sake of some kind of a fancy “maneu- ver”? Do you disagree with Comrade Ra- dek, writing on the American party future, when he says “while they (the American party) will continue their work with an unveiled face, the masses will have time to get rid of their illusions of LaFolletteism” (Daily Worker, December 4, front page.) Understand, this means we will be most actively working to dis- pel those illusions. If the minority wants to be so “logic- al” and ignore facts, I suggest they add to their slogan “for a class farm- er-labor party—its logical.” Perhaps then, at least, the “great mass of des- perate farmers who are ready to join in a class farmer-labor party” would logically join such a party. So much for the word “logic.” The November 1923 thesis of the minority (page 49 of second year) said that the defection of that part of the labor movement controlled by Gom- pers and Johnston, would “be counter- balanced by the great mass of desper- ate farmers who are ready to join in a class farmer_labor party.” Comrade Pepper first saw “the LaFollette reyo- lution” then he saw a great mass of revolutionary farmers. The minority claims to be “logical,” and ignores facts. Lovestone and Bedacht, to be sure, give what they claim are facts, but not about this farmer-labor business. No, they list a lot of “sins committed by the major- ity.” Maybe to them logic means ir- relevant misrepreseytations. Won't someone, please, draw up for private circulation only a list of “sins” of the minority? I want to contribute some facts to such a list. For instance Comrade, Nat Kaplan—and other “leading theoreticians” of the minor- ity have been throwing Pepper in our faces last year, because that “peculiar condition” (of the party) in America is by them deemed essential to the real ization of a mass Communist Party. The majority thesis proposes the correct Communist policy—and has the facts. Lasure Tee acy Uarker fs es SSE Post Cards in Colors Something New and Different. Use them for your regular cor- respondence. Have a set for your album. No. 1—Lenin directing the revolution No. 2—Lenin, when 16 years old No, 3—The Red Flag of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics No, 4—The Russian state seal and emblem No. 5—Trotsky, commander of the Soviet Red Army ONE CARD 5 CENTS In lots of 10 or more, 2c per card, 1% in lots of 100 or more, Send money order, check or post age to Literature Department WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA 1113 W. tag hy Bivd., Chicago, Ill. SSS) —__COC PITTSBURGH, PA. DR. RASNICK DENTIST Rendering &xpert Dental Service for 20 Ye 45 SMITHFIELD ST, Near 7th Ave. 1627 CENTER AVE., Cor. Arthur 8t. FOR RENT. Large room for two people; all modern conveniences. Comrade Cohen, 3244 THE DAILY WORKER Page Thre@ NO SUBSTITUTES! By DAVID A. GORMAN ‘HE supporters of the minority the- sis contend that dropping the farmer-labor party slogan means the repudiation of the united front tactic on the political field. There are no farmer-labor parties in Germany, France or Italy, and yet the Commun- ist Parties of those countries are car- rying out the C. I. program dealing with the united front on the political fleld. Comrade Ruthenberg states there is a conflict between the analysis of the economic and political developments in the United States and the policy proposed in the majority thesis. To prove that there is a conflict, he states that the majority agrees that the con- ditions which created independent po- litical action on the part of the work- ers and farmers still exist and, in fact, they will be intensified, and yet the majority concludes that the farmer- labor party slogan is obselete. Now let us see whether the con- clusion of the majority is correct or not. The farmer-labor party move- ment that developed in the last few years was a revolt on the part of workers and poor farmers against the old parties. Then when the LaFol- lette movement appeared it absorbed the farmer-labor party. But Comrade Ruthenberg says that the conditions that jarred the work- ers loose from the democratic and republican parties will jar them loose from the LaFollette movement and the farmer-labor party slogan is the instrument with which to do it. What are the facts. The workers that split from the old parties lost faith in them as a result of those parties being in power and proving to be parties of big capital. But they have confidence in the LaFollette movement. The majority thesis is correct when it states: “And for some time to come, that is, until the LaFollette movement W. Le Moyne Street. ee no will begin showing concrete and practical signs of its antagonism to the workingclass, the great bulk of the laboring masses of this coun- try will progressively accept the LaFollette movement as their po- litical expression. This means that the question of trying to build a farmer-labor party which shall base itself on the mass organizations of the workers and poorest sections order to build a mass Communist Par- ty it is necessary to create a farmer- labor party. Comrade Ruthenberg states in the December issue of the Workers Monthly that the differencer of viewpoints in regard to the applica- tion of the farmer-labor united front policy developed in the central ex- ecutive committee of the party im- mediately after the formation of the federated farmer-labor party, and he refers to a thesis in which the present minority, and at that time, the major- ity, stated their position: We quote from that thesis, known as the Augus: thesis, written by Pepper and Ruthen berg: “It is our duty to attempt thru a very careful, cautidus propaganda to transform the federated to a Commun- ist mass party” Apparently, the minority of the cen- tral executive committee, or at least, Comrade Ruthenberg, still supports the above statement of the August thesis. Comrade Pepper in defending the thesis compared the federated with the Norvegian labor party, stat- ing that the Norwegian labor party was based on the trade unions and when the International, with which the Norwegian labor party was affiliat- ed, instructed them to reorganize on the individual membership basis, and when the leaders refused, the minority through careful and systematic cam- paigns withdrew from the Norwegian labor party all these members who accepted the C. I. decision, and formed the Norwegian Communist Party. Pepper believed the same thing was possible with the federated. But Com- rade Pepper just overlooked a few facts, and that is, in Norway, there was no Communist Party based on induividual membership, and the C. I. was absolutely correct in demand- ing reorganization because a Commun- ist Party to function must be based on individual membership. But in this country alongside of the federated was the Workers Party based on individual membership. This theory of convert- ing the federated, no matter how many unions would have affiliated with it into a mass Communist Party was a political pipedream, because those Communists in the ‘federated were already members of the Workers (Communist) Party. The radical workers of the trade unions who might have affiliated with the federated will of the farmers is definitely out of range of practical politics for the immediate future.”~ The minority also contends, that in come into the Workers Party prac- tically as quickly without the federa- ted as with it. No substitute for the Workers Party is necessary in order to build a mass Communist Party. How Shall We Fight the LaF ollette Movement? By IDA DAILES N the heat of defense and attack of the conflicting views of the question of our party’s policy, many comrades are losing sight of the main issue be- fore us, or else they are pushing it into the background of the discussion. When we eliminate the past misdeeds that each side hurls against the other, the whole controversy centers on the question, “How can we separate the workers and poor farmers from the LaFollette movement?” Under the heading, Tasks of the Party,” the majority thesis states: “1. Exposure of the bourgeois nature of LaFolletteism. This becomes the central problem of our agitation and propaganda, It must be carried out along the follow- ing lines: a) Formulate concrete political demands based on immediate burning needs of the masses; b). pop- ularize these demands among the masses; c) call upon the rank and file in the shops, unions, among the unemployed, to address resolutioy petitions, and to hold mass mestings demanding that the ‘labor wing’ in the LaFollette combination and the LaFollette group in congress propose legislation along the lines of the de- mands of the masses, at the same time creating the necessary united front rank and file roganization for the struggle; d) by these ‘campaigns un- mask the nature of LaFolletteism and of the labor lieutenants of the LaFol- lette movement, expose the futility of democratic-pacifist parliamentarism and demonstrate the necessity of fol- lowing the leadership of the only class political party, the Workers Party. ..” and then it continues, giving slogans for these immediate united front struggles. . The minority thesis offers, in op- Position to this, the following: “8, The concrete steps which we must take in carrying out the policy are the fol- lowing: a) Our members in the trade unions shall conduct a strong cam- paign of criticism against the LaFol- lette progressive movement, pointing out that it is a Nberal capitalist third party and not @ farmer-labor party and raising the slogan of a class farmer-labor party and splitting these trade unions away from the LaFollette progressive movement. (b) Wherever labor unions are affiliated with units of the LaFollette progressive organ- ization, our members shall seek to become delegates and to make in these organizations the same criticism and raise the slogan of the ‘class farm- er-labor party’ and to split them away from the LaFollette progre: move- ment. c) We shall oppose the affilia- “Immediate coming national convention tenatively set for January by the LaFollette pro- gressive organization, our policy shall be, that whereever party members are in organizations affiliated and entitled to send delegates, to have our party members elected with instructions to make the same criticism against the LaFollette progressive organization in its national convention and raise the the slogan of a ‘class-farmer-labor par- ty’ in order to build a left-bloc and split it,away. e) We shall mobilize all the class farmer-labor elements with which we have contact and which are now affiliated with the LaFollette pro- gressive organization for the same campaign against this as a liberal, third capitalist party and not a labor party and to have them raise the slogan of a ‘class farmer-labor party’ and to split with the LaFollette pro- gressive movement.” I shall npt attempt to expand on the contradictions within section E of the minority thesis. Let us examine the two programs and see which furnishes more effective methods of fighting the LaFollette movement, Comrades, here we have the whole thing boiled down. Here we have the two proposed methods for fighting the LaFollette movement. It scarcely seems necessary to expand on the subject. However, a litle further clarification will do no harm and may be of some benefit. Our party is distinguished from such parties as the proletarian party and the socialist labor party by one thing among others, This is, our con- ception that the masses of workers do not learn thru abstract propaganda and theoretical education, That is why we aim to win the masses by es- tablishing our leadership in the every day struggles of the workers and to give them experience by putting them into motion against their exploiters as well as against their misleaders. This conception of mdss education in the class struggle also holds good in re- lation to the LaFollette movement, What does the minority propose? Read each section of their proposal above quoted and you will find repeat- ed, “we shall conduct a strong cam- paign of criticism against the LaFol- lete movement, pointing out that it is a liberal capitalist third party and not a farmer-labor party and raising the slogan of a class farmer-labor par- ty.” Comrades, what does this mean but that we must give to the workers a theoretical exposition of: the pds- sible virtues of afarmer-labor party as against the vices of the third party movement? How many workers could be moved to action by an analysis of tion with the LaFollette progressive organizations of any unions not ready affiliated. d) In relation to th the economic bases of the two types of parties? Yet we cannot point to the achievements of a farmerlabor party because this party has not yet even been born, much less had a re- cord of achievements which might draw the workers to it. Any comrade who stops to think for a moment will see the absurdity and impossibility of moving masses of workers in this fashion. On the other hand, the majority thesis proposes a campaign of action, a campaign to get the workers near enough to scratch the paint off the surface of their LaFollette idol and bring to light the dead wood which is the real body of this movement so far as the working class is concerned. We must choose between these two methods that one which is most ef- ficient to accomplish our present aim, the unmasking of the LaFollette illu- sion. To me the two proposals resolve themselves into three words: Talk versus action, Our slogan must be: Forward to action. COMMUNISM VERSUS OPPORTUNISM By A. WINICK, T this critical time when the des- tiny of our party is discussed in reference to the adoption of either the majority or the minority thesis, it is highly important to analyze the fun- damental differences of the two groups in the C. E. C. of the Work- ers Party. Both factions of the C. E. C., I pre- sume, agree that our aim to which we are striving is the dictatorship of the proletariat, thru which the Com- munistic state will be This can only be accomplished thru organizing a strong Communist Par- ty of the vanguard of the working class and poor farmer, which will finally realize their aim. Mention- ing these axioms which no true Com- munist can afford to ignore, is sim- ply to remind some of our comrades who seem to be forgetful regarding the old truths. Now let us look into the thesis of the minority and see their inconsistency. The thesis of the minority does not take into consideration whether the present time is opportune for the slo- gan of a farmer-labor party, yet they proceed arguing in favor of such a slo- gan, and it is only as the result of severe criticism from the comrades of the majority that, no other, but one of the authors of the minority document Comrade Jay Lovestone in an article printed in the DAILY WORKER, De- cember 9, confesses that the slogan of a farmer-labor party cannot be ex- pected with “immediate success.” But allow me to quote a paragraph of his splendid article. He says: “Communists do not measure the validity of their tactics and program with the same yardstick that the vul- gar bourgeois pragmatists do. Com- munists do not test the revolution- ary value of their slogans or princi- ples by the chances of ‘immediate success.’ ” Comrade Lovestone forgets that Communists are not utopiams and good party tacticians are not adven- turists, any comrade who is endeavor- ing to revive a slogan which is dead, at. least for the present, seems to be either a utopian or at least a poor tactician, but Comrade Lovestone does not belong to neither category because he asserts himself that he is not expecting from the minority pana- cea an “immediate success.” The LaFollette petty-bourgeoisie combination have received the sup- port of the working class of America! the recent election showed clearly and definitely, the fighting line is dis- tinctly outlined for the Workers’ Party, on one side the big capitalist “monster” in the center the “yellow plague” and on the left the vanguard of the working class and the poor farmers under the banner of the Workers Party. No retreating into a half-baked farmer-labor, semi-Com- munist Party will bring good results but will only weaken the Workers Party. Our next practical step is a call to the workers and poor farmers to join the Communist ranks, strengthen established. | our party within, organize the unem- ployed, ete., etc. It is clearly understood that the adoption of a program is not measur- ed with immediate results, because it is the basis on which the party rests upon, while a slogan is a question of tactics and may be changed at times due to conditions which arise, tho not at the expense of our fundamen- tals. The attitude of the majority is clear, pointing out that the present time is inopportune for the slogan of a farmer-labor party. Communists have proved the world over that thru a strong disciplined workable party it is possible to exer- cise more influence over the great masses of the proletariat and the poor farmers than thru a loose formless organization— and that is exactly what the comrades of the minority are seeking to build if their thesis of a farmer-labor party is adopted. InMemoriam-Lenin On the 21st of January .the workers the world over will hold memorial meetings for Nicolai Lenin, the leader and fighter for the liberation of the laboring masses. In connection with these memorial meetings, on Thursday, Jan. 15, a moving picture, “In Memoriam—Lenin,” will be shown in the Gartner’s Independent Theatre, 725 Roosevelt Road. Two other pic tures will also be shown: “Polikush- ka,” and “Soldier Ivan’s Miracle.” Admission will be 50c. Tickets are for sale now at Russian Technical School, 1902 W. Division St., Russian Co-operative Restaurants, 1734 W. Division St. and 760 Milwaukee Ave., at 166 W. Washington St., Room 307, at the DAILY WORKER, 1113 W. Washington Blvd., and by all mem- bers of the Technical Aid Society, U. 8. S. R. a” When you buy, get an “ for the DAILY WORKER. SSS sss: Dr S. ZIMMERMAN 22352-N. CALIFORNIA AVE fn 3 MY NEW LOCATION A 12-Page Issue On the First Birthday of the DAILY WORKER. Special X-Ray Prices — to G Workers Given ESTABLISHED 12 YEARS. My Examination Is Free Extracting Specialist DELAY MEANS DECAY HE issue of January 13 will be heaped full of facts and features—all gaily attired with cartoons to best celebrate the very first birthday of the DAILY WORKER. Comrade Bob Minor’s splendid cartoons will be a leading feature. Aa review of the past year of American labor in general and the Workere Party in particular—plus the part the DAILY WORKER has played in both—will be another feature. Special contributions by Wm. Z. Foster, Wm. F. Dunne, J. Louis Engdahi, T. J. O'Flaherty, Manuel Gomez and others among the best writers in the labor movement will add their share to the first birthday celebration. Give this issue to a worker and you assure the DAILY WORKER a new reader—and your branch of the party a new member, BUNDLE ORDERS MUST BE IN BY SATURDAY, JANUARY 10. PRICE 2 CENTS PER COPY Make your order as large as possible and send it in with your remittance attached to this blank. THE DAILY WORKER 1113 W. Washington Bivd. He of the January 13 issue. Chicago, III, are my birthday greetings in a remittance of for which you will send me a bundle order of... ‘sna ape Taare Our Party’s Immediate Tasks