The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 11, 1925, Page 6

| 8 BRR ERIN: EINTRD S taane ‘ nyaeore y Page Six THE DAILY W’ORKER|| Published by the DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO, 1118 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, Ill. Phone, Monroe 4712 —_——_—__. % SUBSCRIPTION. RATES By mail (in Chicago only)? By mail (outside of Chicago): $8.00 per year $4.50 six months $6.00 per vear $3.50 six months $2.50 three months $2.00 three months SS Address all mail and make out checks to THE DAILY WORKER, 1113 W. Washington Sivd., Chicago, Illinois fess ——$—_—_—_—$_———— J. LOUIS ENGDAHL WILLIAM F, DUNNE MORITZ J. LOEB. .Editors frame .Business Manager 1923, at the postoffice at Chi- 1 mail September 21, , Iu, under the act of March 3, Entered as second- ca _Aavertising rates on application. =a It Makes a Difference Campbell McCarthy, a Negro, sentenced to be hanged on the 16th of Octobre next for the murder of a Pinkerton detective. It Was a case of self-deferise according to the condemned man. The presiding judge refused the Negro a new trial. According to the testimony of the Negro—and it was not refuted—both men drew their guns at the same time. McCarthy was quicker on the draw. There was no money raised to defend the Negro, and unless a miracle happens he will forfeit his life on the gallows. Tt is a significant commentary on the anti-Negro prejudice pre- vailing in this city, that out of the many people condemned to suffer the death penalty in Chicago during this year only two Negroes swung at the end of a rope in Cook county jail. Yet the capital- ists tell us that all are equal under the law. Contrast the cases of the convicted Negroes with that of Russel Scott’ who was declared legally insane by a jury last week. Scott would be hanged by now but for the money raised by wealthy people to save his life. Clever counsel was retained and an old law exhumed which gave a condemned man the right to a sanity trial before being executed. The plan worked, insane asylum instead of to the gallows. Poor people and particularly poor colored people are’ not equal under capitalist law. It will take considerable searching of the criminal records to find a case where a wealthy man has paid the death penalty for murder. Thousands of Negroes thruout the country are executed every year without arousing the sympathies of the bourgeoisie. Communists have no desire to pose as defenders of murderers or other criminals of that type. We claim that crime is the product of a society that is based on injustice. We hold that no successful attempt can be made to abolish crime in a society that is dominated by the greatest criminal class in history: the capitalist class. We state that the taking of one life or two lives by the gunmen is only a drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale murder by slow, methods of young workers employed in the slave hells of the na tion, under health destroying conditions. Only when capitalism is abolished will the evils flowing from it be eliminated. Of those evils not the least is race and color discrimination. Famine in Ireland : According to late dispatches a terrible condition of: distr brought on by famine exists in Ireland. The destitution is:no longer confined to the west coast which was ravaged by hunger for over on year due to the failure of the crops, the peat supply and the fishin; industry. The midlands are now stricken. Children have died of hunger in the largest town in Tipperar: one of the most fertile spots in Ireland, But evidently the fertilit of the land means nothing to the children of the working class. Thi Jand is not theirs. Neither does the fact that Ireland is now gov- erned by the Irish capitalists and not directly by English bring any felief to the enslaved Irish workers. The mayor of Clonmel said: “It is terrible to listen to the tales of woe. Children have died of starvation and others are dying» of illness caused by the prevalent lack of food.” These tales of suffering appeared in the capitalist press and the conditions of workers must be very bad indeed, when the placemen who run the Free State government allow the news to get abroad, "The petty robbers that rule the Irish Free State have attempted to keep the facts of the situation from the outside world. The ef- forts of Comunists and progressives in the United States to relieve the famine stricken on the west coast of Ireland were assailed by Irish nationalist elements. The clergy did not relish having to admit that their prayers and supplications to their deity did not bring plenty to the catholic people of Ireland, tho those same clergy had thun- dered from their altars during the days of the Russsian famine that god was punishing the wicked Bolsheviks for denying his existence. While want is bringing death to the doors of the working class we find in an Irish paper carrying a quarter page advertisement soliciting funds to enable the catholic church to send one hundred strapping young Irishmen to China, not to help the Chinese free their country from the imperialsits, but to convert the Chinese to the! catholic religion. Here is a sample of the hokum that is peddled out to the starving Trish workers: “Those young students are preparing for the priest- hood for China. Please help them. They need your help. By help- “tig our missionaries you share in their sacrifices and in their reward. “Their, converts will be your converts too. We need prayers. We “need funds.” And then in return for the cash the following renumer- ation is offered: “We celebrate 2,500 masses every year for our Denefactors living and deceased.” Is it any wonder that famine and want dogs the footsteps of FN people who are snot only cursed with capitalism but with the most -eynital and coldly efficient religious opium joint in the world? This, institution thrives on ignorance and misery. Side by side with the work of relieving the destitution of the starving Irish workers must ‘go 8 propaganda that will also relieve their congested brains of the superstition which helps to make them tools of bigotry and op- pression. Amalgamation While reactionary labor officials are invoking all their tricks to block the movement for amalgamation of the eraft unions into industrial unions, the capitalists are proceeding to merge their in- dustries, in the interests of more efficiency and larger profits. The latest outstanding proof of this development in big business is the amalgamation of seven independent steel companies in Gary and eastern districts. Those plants have a total value of $20,000,000, Instead of the competition which formerly existed between those com- panies there will be unity of direction and underbidding will cease, This makes fer more dolls in the pockets of the owners. When will the workers of the United States take a lesson in the value of amalgamation from their masters? The capitalists do/not care where an idea comes ‘from, whether it be Moseow or Atlanta, Georgia, provided it so easible to them. The superiority of th _industrial form of orga jon to the craft form is’ anu to every. ‘body. The day of craft® jonism is over I and Scott goes to an} , | immediate future for a labor porty or THE DAILY Loreism and Maneuvers - - HE breath of life of every Com- munist Party is a policy of strug- | gle, of maneuvering against the cap- | italist class. In the Communist sense | maneuvering means fighting, it means to attack the enemy, a Communist | Party must grow by fighting. Thru the actual struggle it establishes its leadership over the masses, consoli- dates its own ranks, develops its spirit of discipline, and links its in- tellectual life closely to the actualities: of the class struggle. Without this) policy of struggle, of maneuvering, no | party can be a Communist Party in the real sense of the word. It is an unfailing characteristic of the right-wing in every Communist Party to shrink from the Communist policy of unrelenting struggle. The Lore tendency in our party sharply manifests this characteristic, thereby demonstrating clearly that it is op- portunistic and menshevistic. On all sides the comrades following Lore ex- press their opposition to party man- euvers, Lore himself has stated this | opposition many times. Now comes | Comrade Askeli in his article and | says the same thing. But the point | of view of these comrades regarding maneuvers was perhaps best stated | by Scott Nearing in his letter a year | ago dealing with the policies of our | party. He proposed the following | program, as against our policy of | “maneuvering”: 1. Realize that its (the Workers | Party’s) available clientile together ir \small, no thought of leadership of the masses, and highly localized, and ren- dered in part ineffective by its foreign | admixtures. 2. Aim to hold this clientile toge- ther at all hazards; to preserve its morale and efficiency; to train it in effective and cooperative activities; to teach it to trust itself; to try it and discipline it until it becomes a really effective working force; and during By JAY LOVESTONE. | N making the report on the Ameri- can question before the last Plenum of the Executive Commitee of the Communist International,. Comrade Kuusinen declared as follows: “The question upon which the con- flict arose in the American party was whether the party should fght in the not. As you know, the majority of the Central Committee of the party opposed it and the minority supporte it. In the opinion of the commission, the majority based its policy in this respect too much on superficial tem- porary phenomena. The minority is absolutely right in its confidence of the vitality of the labor party move. ment.” (Our emphasis.) Here we have stated concretely and tersely what has been the major po- litical issue before the membership of our party until the C. I. made the above declaration endorsing the stand taken by the minority of the Central Executive Committee. The Limits of Mere Acceptance. All but an insignificant handful in our party have declared their accept- ance of this decision of the Commun- ist International. But, since this de- cision was made by the plenum, some of our leading comrades have taken it upon themselves to interpret this decision as a repudiation of the labor | Tevolutionary movement. party policy pursued by the Ruthen- berg group. If our party is to carry out this Comintern decision whole- heartedly and effectively such misin- terpretation must stop. The comrades must remember that a mere declara- tion of acceptance of a C. I. decision does not give them a license to con- tinue a policy of misinterpreting to the membership the fundamental meaning of so basic a policy as the labor party declaration of the last plenum. This article is written in order to help secure the conditions for effective execution of the C. I. decision—a proper understanding of this decision, Some leading comrades have, per! unconsciously, perhaps unwillingly, perhaps even without full understand- ing, accused the Ruthenberg group of tanding for “fake” labor parties. In view of the fact that this charge is hurled against those comrades whe have always stood for a vigorous la- bor party policy, the accusation tends to have an effect of discrediting our whole labor party campaign. It must be remembered that now, more than ever before, is it necessary to imbue our membership with an understand- ing of, rather than a sceptical atti- tude towards the need for a labor party campaign by our party. No one deny that the months of insistent Opaganda waged a short ago in our ke against a labor party have ffects which still have This is true despite the fact many comrades insist that the equisite to being a Bolshevik is ke mistakes and then ll, we admit our mistakes. admission of mistak: 18 look the facts squarely in the face, Now aun ae an and dangerous pare y in a party discussion {s ray "ay the following ir- retutabigedae From pact 1924, when the pres- é a all this time to weet decisive strug- gle which will almost surely wreck the organization, °* © 3. Husband thé resources of the organization carefully; admit mem- bers only after long probation and after careful scrutiny; making each move with the idea that the struggle is being waged against immense odds, in a hostile territory, and against skil- led generalship, 4, Expand the organization and its work slowly; taking no step that will nnecessarily expose it to destruc- on; making no thove that will en- able the enemy t a a crushing blow. UCH a program, ‘whch is a true expression of ’fdreism, has noth- ing of Communism! in it. It is based upon a great underestimation of the power of our parfy 'and the fighting spirit of the working masses. It be- trays a complete lack of faith in the To put it into effect wouldsbe' to condemn our party to isolation from the masses and to a life of sterile, sectarianism. Op- | position to party maneuvers, that is to party struggle, is the sigu manual of menshevism. It ig the high road to class collaboration and the eventual repudiation of the eyolution. But the comrades of the Lore tend- ency hasten to assure us that their opposition to maneuvering by the | party relates only fo this epoch’ when our party is young and weak. This is a sophistry, The fact is the further we go along the greater their opposi- tion will become to’ the party partici- pating in the struggle. “Our imme- diate tasks will constantly become greater courage and more Communist daring will be required to fulfill them. The opposition of the right wing will become keener and keener, and it will culminate in its utmost bittér- ness at the supreme “maneuver” of the revolution. These comrades say E. C. asumed the direction of varty affairs and policies, until the E. C, majority, in October 1924, hrew overboard our labor party pol- icy, the Ruthenberg and Foster groups practically voted together and had a common policy in applying the labor party program, : We hereby showin tabular form an analysis of the yoting record of the C. E. C. on the labor party policy from January to October. 1924: Table Showing Number of Occasions berg and Foster . Application of ley. (January to ¢ 1 t o. E. C. Majori- 'y dropped the Labor Party Policy completely.) The date, auth the proposals follow: 1. Jan. 3, 1924, ©. E. C., Ruthen- WORKER our party is not strong enough and well enough disciplined to make a real fight at present. And if we leave it to them to decide it never will be strong enough, Their policy will al- way be as it is now, so long as they remain Loreites, to shrink from the struggle. BUNDANT revolutionary experi- ence demonstrates this fact. In the Russian movement before the re- volution of 1905, the mensheviks op- posed every effort of the Bolsheviks to really put the party at the head of the growing revolutionary uphea- val, and arguments were always es- sentilly the same as those of the Loreites now, that the party was too weak, that the workers were unpre- pared for a struggle. They stabbed in the back the men who made the heroic uprising in Moscow, In 1917 their policy was the same. They did not hesitate to take up arms against the Bolsheviks who were determined upon a real struggle against the cap- italists. With their constant policy of underestimating the strength of party and of the working class as a whole, they maintained, and“their po- sition was that of the whole Second International, that a proletarian re- volution was impossible in Russia, In Germany, Brandler, again undestimat- ing the forces making for the revolu- tion, shrank from the struggle and brought the whole movement to a disastrous debacle. In Italy in 1920, when the workers, during the time of the metal workers’ strike, were ready to deliver a final blow at cap- italism, D'Aragona and the other menshevik leaders were on hand to tell them that they were not yet well enough organized and educated to take over society, and that if they attempted to do so their effort would be drowned in blood. Then these mensheviks, in the: name of niore compete organization, better disci- pline, and more thorough education 17, March 17, 1924, Council, Ruth- onberg-Foster (7)—Motions regarding 4 P. policy. Unanimously adopted. 18. March 24, 1924, Polcom., Pep- per—Motion to approve our poiicy re- garding Reading L. P. Unanimously adopted, 19. March 25, 1924, Polcom., Ruth- enberg—Motions regrading F, L. P. situation in Indiana. Unanimously adopted. 20, March 25, 1924, Polcom., Pep- per (1), Foster (1)—Proposals regard- ing California situation. Unanimously adopted. 21. March 25, 1924, Polcom., Pep- per (4)—Motions regarding Minne- sota situation. Unanimously adopted. 22. March 25, 1924, Polcom., Pep- per (2)—Proposals as to opposing W. P. members running on F. L. P. tickets without announcing them- berg—Proposals o1 A. Conference; U t oiting Communists. Unanimously a . 2. Jan. 3, 1924, QB, C., Ruthen-| ">> April 2, 1924, Polcom., Ruthen- berg—Proposals on Minnesota situa- tion relative to Party’s attitude to Shipstead and Johnson. Unanimously adopted os 3. Jan. 7, 1924,"Pplcom., Ruthen- berg—Proposals. rr oF. FL. P. Unanimously ado P 4. Jan. 7, 1924, Polcom., Ruthen- berg—Three proposals on California L. P. situation. Unanimously adopted. 5. Jan. 16, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg-Pepper—Five motions regarding proposed May 30 conference. Un- animously adopted. 6. Jan. 16, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Five motions on North Dakota Policy. Unanimously adopted. 7. Jan. 25, 1924, Council, Cannon— Four motions on policy regarding ef- fort to postpone May 30 conference. Unanimously adopted. 8. Jan, 25, 1924) Bornes, Cannon— Five proposals a May 30 con- ference. Unanimot sly adopted. 9. Jan. 28, 1924, Polcom., Cannon —Six proposals regarding May 30 con- ference. Ruthenberg—One _ proposal regard- ing May 30 convention. Pepper—One Proposal regarding May 30 convention. Unanimously adopted. ne! 10, Feb. 8, 1924, Polcom., Ruthen- berg-Cannon-Peppet—Motions regard- ing C. P. P. A. conference. Unanimous- ly adopted. ce 11, Feb 17,1924, Polecom., Ruthen- berg (5), Foster ?(2), Cannon (1)— Motions regarding May 30 negotia- tions. Unanimously adopted. 12, Feb, 18, 1984, Polcom., Ruthen- berg (2), Foster (1)—Motions regard- ing policy of California F, L, P. Un- animously adop' 13. Feb, 25, 1924, Council, Manley— Report on Nebraska-Grand Island F. L. P. convention gaatons. Unanimous- ly adopted, 14. Feb, 26, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Report on Minneapolis negotia- tions regarding May 30 conference. Adopted by all canembers of both groups except Pepper, 15, March 7, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—-Five proposals regarding March 10 conference, {0¥. Lovestone—-Motfon regarding this conference, Unanimously adopted. 16, Mareh 7, , Council, Ruthen- berg (5), Pe 1)—Proposals re- garding F. F, organization cam- paign, Unanimously adopted, . berg—Proposals regarding New York L. P. situation. Unanimously adopted. 24. April 24, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Proposals regarding L, P, situa- tion in Illinois, lowa, Michigan, New York and Oklahoma. Unanimously adopted. 25. April 24, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Proposals regarding California, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsyl- vania L. P, situations. Unanimously adopted. 26. April 28, 1924, Counctl, Ruthen- berg—Proposals regarding Minnesota situation. Unanimously adopted. 27. May 24, 1924, C. B. C., Ruthen- berg (10)—Proposals regarding June 17 convention policy. Bittelman (7)—Proposals regarding June 17 convention policy, Unanim- ously adopted. 28. May 14, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Proposals regarding labor party campaign, C. P. P. A., Committee 48, Oklahoma, etc. Unanimously adopted. 29° May 21, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg (5)—Proposals regarding Okla- homa F L, P. Motion to defer, Un- animously adopted. 7 30. May 21, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg (2)—Proposals regarding Penn- sylvania Labor party policy, Unan- imously a@opted. 31, May 21, 4924, Council, Ruthen- berg (3)—Proposals regarding New York, Colorado, Minnesota situations, Unanimously adopted. 32. May 26, 1924, Council, Bittel- man—Proposal regarding special de- claration on L. P. policy. Unanimously adopted, 38. May 27, 1924, Council, Bittel- man—Proposal regarding LaFollette attack on Communists. Unanimously adopted, 34. May 31, 1924, Council, Love- stone (3)—Proposals regarding Cali- fornia situation. Unanimously adopted. 35. June vA 1924, C, E. C., Foster— Moton regarding C, I, decision, Un- animously adopted. 36, June 8, 1924, C. B. C., Sub-Com- mittee—Report on policy and plat- form, Unanimously adopted. 37, June 8, 1924, C. B. C., Sub-Com- mittee—Special platform report. Un- animously adopted. 88 July 16, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg (8)—Motions. ® Montana situation, Unanimo adopted, ——— By Wm. By Wm. Z. Foster of the working class, betrayed the, was that we who advocated this al- revolution by: demoralizing the mas- | liance were The present op-| that, they who opposed it were the ses in the struggle. position in our party to a policy of) maneuvers and. struggle faint forecast of the tremendously increased opposition of the same character that will come from the mensheviks in the period of the re- volution. Te Loreite right wing in our party covers up its fear of struggle by the use of many high sounding revo-| lutionary phrases. ‘This is also an p orthodox tactic of the right wing. In 1905, in Russia, when the question of the organization of a provisional revolutionary government stood be- fore the party, Lenin advocated par- ticipation of the party in this govern- ment. The mensheviks, on the other hand, animated. by their fear of the workers assuming leadership -in the desperate struggle, bitterly opposed such -participation., And character- istically they did it under the cover of revolutionary phrases. They de- nounced Lenin as a opportunist and condemned his policy as in opposition to that formerly enunciated by the Second International, |tenanced the participation of social- ists in bourgeois governments. They pretended not to see any difference between participation in a bourgeois government during the pre-war period, and participation in a revolutionary democratic government engaged in a death struggle with Czarism. Their real aim was not to preserve holy the principles of the Party, but to avoid the struggle. Their cries of “opportu- nist” at Lenin were merely a cloak for their own timidity and lack.of faith in the Party and the working class. N our party we have had a classical illustration of the same tactics by the right wing. This was in the case of the proposed third party al- liance. The Loreites denounced this in all keys. The burden of their song 39. July 26, 1924, Council, Bittel- man (6)—Motions regarding C. P. P. A. Unanimously adopted. 40. Aug. 2, 1924, Polcom., Ruthen- berg—Election platform and labor par- ty. Unanimously adopted. 41. Auge4,.1924, Polcom., Ruthen, berg-Bittelman-+Proposals California ‘situation. Unanimous! adopted. 42, Aug. 28, 1924, Polcom., Cannon —Motions regarding Buffalo L. P. pol- icy. Unanimously adopted. 43, “Sept. 22, 1924, Council, Ruthen- berg—Proposals regarding North Dakota labor party. Unanimously adopted. ey . TABLE NO, 2. Table Showing Number of Occasions on Which the: Ruthenberg and Foster Groups Disagreed on the Application of the Labor Party Policy (January to October, 1924, till the C. E. C. Major- ity Dropped the.Labor Party Policy Completely). The date, authors of proposals, and proposals follow: 1. Jan, 25, Council, Pepper—Mo- tion declaring that Mahoney was in- fluenced by..night wing elements in postponing~May 30th convention and that C. E. C, should carry out ener- getically its January full mgeting de cision on this matter. Lost by groups’ votes, 7 2. Jan. 28, Pol. Com., Pepper—Pro- posal regarding May 30th convention. Foster—Proposal regarding May 30th convention. Lost (Pepper's), Carried (Foster's), by groups’ voting, 3.. Feb. 15, C. E. C., Majority-Minor- ity—Theses on present political situa: tion. Carried (Majorlty’s by 8 to 5). 4, March 7, Council, Pepper— Amendment to one of Ruthenberg pro- posals regarding March 10th confer- ence. Lost. Pepper, Engdahl, Love- stone vote in affirmative, all rest neg- ative, 5. March 25, Pol Com., Pepper— Regarding F. F. L. P. in Illinois. Fos- ter—Amendment to this motion. Car- ried (Foster’s amendment) by groups’ voting. 6, March 25, Pol Com., Pepper (2), Ruthenberg (2)—Proposals regarding Minnesota situation. Cannon (7)— Proposals for Minnesota situation. Carried (Cannon's proposals instead of Pepper-Ruthenberg motions). 7. May, 2, C. E. C., Ruthenberg— Proposal regarding June 17th policy. Lost, by groups’ voting. 8. May 21, Council, Bittelman—Re- garding instructing members in secur- ing petition signatures in Oklahoma. Lost, tie vote, group versus group. 9. May 27, Council, Lovestone (2)— Motions regarding California situation. Lost, by groups’ voting. . a le Louder Than Words, ‘This record is very plain, This rec- ord speaks louder than the loudest words of misrepresentation hurled by the C. E. C, Majority supporters, This record shows clearly that from Janu-. ary, 1924, until the C. BE. C, Majortty repudiated the Labor Party policy and campaign the two groups participated in voting on uabor Party policies on 53 occasions; involving a minimum of 146 motions. This ree. -*ows that on 48 occa: is involving a minimum of 130 dealing with the appli- cation of Labor Party pol- toy the Rut! and Foster groups which discoun-} is only a} ) the opportunists and real Communists. The facts'of the matter were these: The Loreites op- posed the third party alliance not be- cause they were too good Communists, but because they were not good enough. The basis of their opposi- tion was to be found in their opposi- tion to maneuvers in general. Their | revolutionary phrases were so much camouflage. Their position was not sustained by the Comintern. They op- posed the alliance because of oppos' tion to-maneuvers in principle. The Comintern opposed it because it was the wrong kind of a maneuver.. Bet- ween these two points of view there is a+broad ocean of difference, the, difference between menshevism and Bolshevism. We must defeat the Loreistic. tend@- ency in our party which opposes ma- neuvers and our general policy of struggle. Our party is a fighting or- ganization, It must live and grow in the battles of the working class, This does not mean that we shall have a reckless policy of. maneuvering On the contrary, the greatest skill will be necessary to steer our party be- tween the left Scylla and putchism and the righ Charybdis of opportun- ism, But fight and struggle we must to the best of our ability. Our party cannot postpone its active partici- pation in the class struggle to some far off day when, by a policy of care- ful education and organization, as the Loreites propose, it might have as- sembled sufficient strength to make a showing in the struggle. Communist parties are not built that way. That is the way to build meénshevik par- ties. Our party must fight today, to- morrow, and every day, That is the only way it can become in fact as in name the vanguard of the proletar- iat. ow Not to » Accept a Communist International Decision reached unaninmity. On only ten oc casions involving 16 motions dealing with our Labor Party policy did any differences manifest themselves while the party was pursuing the Comintern towards the Labor Party cam- The writer has made no effort to defend the position of the C. E. C. Minority against the attacks of the Majority of the C. E. C,. First of all, these attacks are of a non-serious na- ture. Secondly, the best defense and criticism of the Labor Party position taken by the Minority is already to be found in the decision of the Commun- ist International. The Minority of the C. E. C. has fought for this decision before the Comintern while the Ma- jority of the C. E. C. was fighting against it. The Minority of the C. B.C, has forced the Majority of the C. B. C. to consult the Comintern on the Labor Party tactics before a convention and thus spared the party the) possible overruling of its conventi by the Communist International. 7. © “Fakes” and S. If there is anything at ell in the “fake” Labor Party accusation hurled at the Minority of the C. E. C. by the Cc. E, C. Majority group, the Foster group shares this blame equally with -he Ruthenberg group. The two groups have made jointly nearly all the Labor Party policy mistakes which were made by the party during this period. The two groups have voted the over- whelming number of times unanimous- ly on the application of the Labor Party policy while the C. E. C. Ma- jority permitted the party to have a Communist pro-Labor Party policy and not a sectarian anti-Labor Party pol- icy. = If the C. EB. C. Majority insists that its application of the Labor Party pol- icies cannot be characterized as “fake,” then, in the face of thagabove analysis, the application of the Labor Party policy by the Minority equally cannot be characterized as take. ee s. A Dangerous Practice. We fear that the pofwzious slogan of “fake” Labor Party thrown in’ v the C. E. C. Majority only ten discredit the Labor Party policy pets ed by the party thru the advice of the Comintern, What more effective weapon could the C. E. C. Majority employ against the Labor Party policy than to brand the most consistent and rolitically honest supporters of this volicy as advocates of “fake” labor rarties? In effect this campaign of he C, E. C. Majority only tends to otrengthen the already existing Ie ‘babor Party tendencies in our ranks, tendencies for which their months of energetic propaganda are largely re- sponsible. Consequently, the membership of our party must, in the most decisive terms, declare themselves that after the last Communist International de- cision on the Labor Party policy, the Workers (Communist) Party of Amer- ica will brook no further opposition to a Communist Labor Party policy, and will tolerate no further hostility to a vigorous Labor Party campaign re- gardl of the form in which this hostility may manifest itself, The present economic and political situation calls for the united efforts of all the Communist elements in our party for an unhesitating and vigoives Labor Party campaign, : Reet