The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 28, 1928, Page 3

§ =) { H | | | Pee DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1928 >ARTY PRE-CONVENTION DISCUSSION SECTION The Minority on the Results of of the Plenum Only One Line In the GE. ¢. Majority Statement by Comrades Lovestone and Pepper The following is a contribution to | recognize that the overestimation of the discussion in the Workers (Com- | | the power of American imperialism munist) Party, offered by the Fos-| and the underestimation of the pos-| ter-Bittelman Minority of the Cen- | tral Committee. * * * 1, The actions of the Plenum of the C. E. C. just closed, must be viewed from the standpoint of the | struggle against the war danger. All| the tasks of our Party, as well as} the situation within our Party, must | be considered primarily from the} viewpoint of developing the most ef- | fective means of mobilizing our} membership and the working masses for an effective struggle against American imperialism and the war danger. To effectively do this all deviations from the correct Commu- nist line, particularly the underesti- mation of the war danger, must be irradicated and our Party must be unified on the basis of the line laid down by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern for the struggle against the war danger and capitalist ra- tionalization, 2, The discussions at the Plenum | just closed, has brought about a somewhat new situation in our Par- ty. The Minority submitted a thesis dealing with the economic and ) | bility of struggle against it, con- stitute the chief source of the Right | | danger, yet in essence it retains in| full the right wing analysis and orientation of the old thesis (Love- stone, etc.), and is developing a | series of propositions of a danger- {ous Right wing character such as that there is no perspective for the building up of the new industrial) union movement and the theory of | | the rebuilding of the A, F. of L.| | The so-called new leadership (Pep-| per-Weinstone-Bedacht) is just as fully attached to the Right oppor- tunist orientation of the C, E. C. Majority as was the old leadership of the Majority ,(Lovestone, Wolf, Stachel). (c) The Party must recognize that this maneuver of the C. E. C. Majority is an effort to meet the pressure of the C. L, Y. C, IL, and the membership without in reality changing the line or radically shsug: | ing the leadership. 5. One of the outstanding charac-| teristics of the Plenum was the ef- |fort of the C: E. C. Majority to political situation and the tasks of | our Party, which emphasized the rapidly developing war danger, re- sulting in the sharpening inner and outer contradictions of American imperialism, the leftward drift of the. working masses, the rightward trend of the labor bureaucracy and its efforts to graft the unions onto the war machine of U. S. imperia! ism, and the increased opportunities for our Party to develop and lea¢ mass struggles especially of the 'un- skilled and semi-skilled workers The Poleom Majority, on the othe hand, saw only an almost endless wave of prosperity and the entrance of American imperialism into a new “golden age.” They saw it brought about by the industrialization of the South, the recovery of agriculture, the unobstructed conquest of Latin America, ete., with no sharpening of the inherent imperialist contradic- tions and no increased opportunities for working class struggle. The C, E. C, majority has shown itself to be suffering seriously from “prosperity” illusions. The sharp diseussion for four days around the Majority and Minority theses re- sulted in exposing much more clear- ly the various political tendencies in the Party and in bringing to light certain shiftings within the C. E. C. Majority. 3, The C, E. C. Majority was com- pelled at this plenum to practically withdraw the original “Lovestone thesis (signed by Comrades Love- stone, Pepper and Gitlow) and to present another thesis (the Pepper thesis) signed by Comrades Wein- stone, Bedacht and Patrick. Thus the C. E. C. Majority stands before the Patty with two theses which on the surface would appear to contain different lines on many fundamental questions. For the first thesis Com- rade Lovestone made the report and political argument. This openly defends and further ‘develops | the open opportunist orientation of | the C. E. C. Majority which/is re- /2 reservation. We find no refer- sponsible for most of the Right er-| rors committed by the Party. Com- rades Lovestone, Wolf and Nearing most fully and openly express this ‘Right orientation. For the second thesis, which apparently supplants the first thesis of the C. E. C. Ma- jority, Comrade Pepper made the report and political argument. While retaining fully the essence of the open opporttinist orientation of the first thesis (that of Lovesone), the Pepper thesis undertakes to pay lip | service to the basic contention of the C, E. C. Minority that the main source of the Right danger in our Party comes from overestimating the power of American imperialism and underestimating the possibili- ties for struggle against it. But the Pepper thesis, instead of pointing out that the C. E. C, Majority is it- self guilty of such overestimation, covers up the Right mistakes of the C. E. C. Majority which arise from their overestimation of the power of American imperialism, by blaming this tendency upon Scott Nearing alohe. This thesis, championed by Pepper, Weinstone and Bedacht, dif- ferent from Lovestone thesis, pre- tends also to pay lip service to the Minority’s correct line of struggle on two fronts against open oppor- tunism, the Right danger, and against the Trotskyist-Cannon op- position, opportunism covered with! Left phrases. 4. The political meaning of the appearance of the C. E. C. Majority before the Plenum with two theses and two spokesmen seemingly con- tradicting each other on policies of basic importance, is as follows: (a) Under the pressure of the C. I. and Y, C. I. and under the pressure of the C. E. C, Minority and. the membership, the C. E. C. Majority felt compelled to retire to the background its openly oppor- tunistic orientation as embodied in the first thesis submitted by Com- rade Lovestone, and to retire also to the background Comrades Love- stone, Wolf, and Stachel as leaders of the Majority. Instead they felt compelled to put in the foreground the so-called new thesis and also to bring forward Comrades Pepper, Weinstone and Bedacht. (b) Apparently the C. E. C. Ma- jority proposes to give to the Party a new thesis and a new leadership headed by Comrade Pevpsr § ‘ord of Comrade Lov new thesis while pretending to thesis | ‘led by Comrade Pepp2r, is building build up a new issue in the conven-/| tion discussion, namely, the so-| called “reservations” of the Minor- | ity to the decisions of the Sixth} World Congress, On this we wish) to declare the following: | (a) The Minority never consid-| ered its declaration to the Sixth) Congress as being in any way a) reservation to the general line! lopted by the congress for appli-| ation in all sections of the C. L, neluding the United States. The| inority of the Party delegation to} 2 congress voted for the main, thesis and for all other theses and ions adopted by the congress, (b) The C. I. itself never consid- eved our declaration to the Sixth Congress as being a reservation tp, its main line. The conclusive proof of this is the fact that neither dur- ing the congress nor since has the C. I. told us that we had such reservations.. Had the Comintern been of the opinion that our declara- | tion was equivalent to a reservation on the main line, the Comintern would have plainly said so and would have properly urged the American Party to draw all neces- sary conclusions, (c) The C. I. did not do it. The ECCI has just sent a letter to our C. E. C. severely criticizing ‘the misleading statements contained in the declaration of the C, E..C.” on the decision of the Comintern on the American question. In drafting this letter the ECCI said that it “had before it the Daily Worker of October 2nd containing four docu- ments, including a lengthy state- ment issued in the name of the C. E. C. headed ‘The Comintern De-| cision on the American Question.’ ”| One of these four documents was a brief declaration by the Minority of | the Polcom stating that the Minority | of the Poleom agreed with the declaration of the Minority of the Party delegation- to the Sixth Con- gress. The C. I. did not view the statement of the Minority as being ECCI letter. (d) We are unalterably opposed to the attitude of reservations to the line of the Comintern. That is why we fought against the efforts of Comrades Pepper and Lovestone to “exempt” the American Party from the general line of struggle against the Right danger laid down at the Ninth Plenum of the C. I, That ig why we also fought the C. E. C, Majority’s opposition to the deci- sions of the RILU and Y, C. I. (original draft of Lovestone thesis to February Plenum, articles in the Communist by Comrades Pepper and Lovestone, the May Plenum Resolu- | tion, failure to endorse the Fourth Congress RILU decisions, suppres- sion of the Y. C, I. letter and the issuance of the Polcom letter against it, ete, etc.). This attitude of Comrades Pepper and Lovestone was severely ‘criticized at the Sixth Congress and in the American Com- mission by leading members of the Comintern, as being an effort to formulate a “Monroe Doctrine” for the American Party. That is, Com- rades Pepper and Lovestone were criticized for tendencies to exempt | the United States from the applica- tion of the C. I. general line. The! C. E. C, ignored these criticisms and | persited in its old tendency toward a “Monroe Doctrine.” The ECCI sent their latest letter to the CEC saying “that the Right danger is the main danger for the American Party. The next Party congress must investigate the objective sources of the Right danger and the struggle against it, discussing all Party problems from the standpoint of the struggle against the» Right danger inside the Party and the so- cial reformists’ influence among the workers.” \ (e) The C. E. C. Majority Still persists gin the old tendencies of Comrades Pepper and Lovestone to- ward a “Monroe Doctrine.” This is clearly seen in its two theses, both of which are in disagreement with the Communist International general line, But to cover this up, to con- fuse the Party and to prevent the membership from deliberately and consciously discussing the problems before the Party, the Central Ex- ecutive Committee Majority, now | lence to this statement in the latest | | p into a convention issue our dee- | u arstion to the Congress by declar-|tion he wes selected by Arojoint bill at its last session, which closed | jing it as “reservations, We must; The Foster-Bittelman Opposition in its new statement, “The Minority on the Results of the Party Plenum,” makes a rather be- lated attempt to criticize the Thesis on the Economic and Political Situation and the Resolution against the Right Danger and Trotsky- ism adopted at the last Plenum of the Central Executive Committee. At the Plenum itself the Opposition was unable to uproot any section of the analysis given by the Central Executive Committee or to meet the critical views destroying the whole artificial edifice of their pseudo-analysis. After their decisive defeat at the Plenum (and the ideological defeat the Opposition suffered at the Plenum was even greater than ts organizational defeat) the Foster-Bittelman Opposition tries to “change the subject” to get away from the painful memories of the Plenum discussion on the estimation of the world role of American mper§ ‘ism, of the mutual relations of the internal and external contradictions of the imperialist world, on the estimation and pros- pects of the mass struggles in America. At the Plenum Comrade Foster declared Comrade Bittelman to be the greatest living Marxian on the American continent, stating that he himself is only a simple worker’ in the vineyard of Bittel- man. Comrade Bittelman, on the other hand, raised his claim of being the leading Marxian within the Communist International, ex- pressing his disagreement with the unanimously adopted theses of the World Congress on the international situation, which was intro- duced by Comrade Bucharin in the name of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, approved by the Russian delegation, and assumed its final shape with the cooperation of fifty-odd sections of the Communist International, Comrade Bittelman put forward the wholesale charge that the thesis introduced by Comrades Gitlow, Lovestone and Pepper is a right wing document, because it overestimates the strength of Amer- ican imperialism and underestimates the degree of radicalization in America. The charge was supported most emphatically by the other learned Marxians ‘of the Opposition, such as Comrades Gomez, Cos- trell, Hathaway, Grecht, ete, all of whom Spoke overtime to prove that, although they disagreed with the analysis of the Comintern, which also “overestimates” the strength of American imperialism and “underestimates” the degree of radicalization in America, this is not their fault but that of the Central Executive Committee, and that if the World Congress did not accept their views, the worse for the World Congress. The Plenum exposed the political bankruptcy of the Foster- Bittelman Opposition completely. Comrade Foster made the solemn declaration that Comrade Bittelman is the ideological leader of the Opposition; Comrade Bittelman made the modest statement that he could not contradict Comradg Foster; while the other comrades of the Opposition tried to plug up the holes in the sinking boat of the Opposition, and produced much opportunistic confusion, defending the theories of partial disarmament, of the Smith vote as the clearest expression of radicalization, of the primacy of internal over external contradictions, and the short-lived but cute “apex” theory. The wrong tactics of the Bittelman-Foster Opposition at the Plenum resulted in a heavy loss of their followers, some of them going over to Cannon, most of them coming over to the correct posi- tion of the C, E.C. The Bittelman-Foster Opposition is now executing a retreat and is trying to bring order into its scattered ranks by issuing its new statement. The new statement develops a new “theory.” The Party is not surprised at this, because it has been the habit of the Opposition to invent in each of its statements a new theory. The ten points of the new statement try to make the Party nembership believe that there are two lines within the C. E. C.: one che “Lovestone line” and the other the “Pepper line,” and that the two contradict each other. They put forward the ridiculous charge that the thesis which they call-the “Lovestone thesis” has been with- drawn, and that a new thesis, which they call the “Pepper thesis” (they thus designate the Resolution against the Right Danger and Trotskyism), has taken its place. It will be enough to mention certain facts to ridicule this charge out of existence: 1, The thesis, which they call the “Lovestone thesis,” has been indeed “withdrawn’—-by adopting it--by an overwhelming majority and printing it in the Party press. 2. Pepper declared himself against the so-called “Lovestone thesis” by—being one of its authors and by signing it in the face . of the whole Party. 3. Lovestone took a stand against the so-called “Pepper thesis” by—helping to clarify some of its formulations and by voting for it. The Opposition must be very short of political arguments if it resorts to such a ridiculous statement as that Pepper is against the thesis which he signed and is for the Resolution against the Right Danger and Trotskyism, which was introduced to his report at the Plenum but which was signed by three other comrades who are the authors of the resolution. The Opposition has permanent inner troubles and internal fights for “leadership.” The letters of the various leaders and sub-leaders and sub-sub-leaders of the Opposition to each other and against each other reveal the fact that there was a serious fight within the Op- position between Cannon and Foster for “leadership” and simultan- eously a struggle between Dunne and Cannon. Later a new struggle developed for “leadership” between Comrades Foster and Bittelman, The results are known to the whole Pa Cannon is out of the Foster group, and Bittelman is today the undisputed leader, members of the Opposition, in their correspondence, mentioning Comrade Fos- ter only as the “ex-Chief.” The present Opposition is an unprincipled ec who have only one aim, as it i lition of comrades tated many times in their corres- pondence, the overthrow of the so-called “Lovestone leadership,” and who differ in political questions frequently and in many respects. It was just a few months ago that Comrade Foster refused to fight the present Central Executive Committee as a Right wing, and refused to make a report in Moscow against the trade union policies of the Central Executive Committee. We quote here a letter dated Moscow, August 31, 1928, which is igned by Comrades Bill Dunne, Hathaway, Gorman, Sam Don, M Izman, Harry Heywood, and Manuel Gomez and which. state: “At the same time the comrades of the former Foster group were having similar difficulty with Foster, He hesitated also in opening the fight against the Lovestone Seah as a right wits group and proposed to merely fight a Ss: takes. On the criticism of Losovsl y, the failure to endor se the R. I. L. U. Congress report, and the mistakes in the miners’ struggle, he resisted every effort of the group to deal with these questions in the group, and in his speeches he tried to avoid them. In the American Commission, Bittelman had to make the report because of Foster’s refusal to admit the mistakes on the R. I. L. U. questions and the mistakes in writing the reply in the July Communist to the article of Cannon defending Losovsky. These questions were discussed in a very sharp man- ner in our group meeting here and resulted in certain tendencies toward a realignment of groupings in the Party.” The Opposition is trying to hold together its disint lowing by the building up of a Frankenstein of disunity in the ranks of the Central Executive Committee. This policy is only the sign of the political bankruptcy of the Opposition, and is nothing by the con- tinuation of their policy of “speculation” on so-called inner differ- ences. ting fol- We want to state heforé the whole Pa: the first discussion with the how not to make a united sen in st the influence of the Fitzpatrick A. F. of group upor certain sections of our Party, we have always been te together politically very closely, that in all Party discussions in the last six years we have shared the same views and tried to combat, together with Comrade Ruthen- berg, the erroneous opportunistic political opinions of the comrades around Bittelman and Foster. y that since 1922, since Foster group about In the present Party disiussion we state with the utmost eni- phasis that the so-called “Juovestone thesis” is the product of collec- tive work, in which not only the signers of the thesis, Comrades Git- low, Lovestone and Pepper, participated, but also other comrades, such as Comrades Weinstone and Minor, and that the Resolution against the Right Danger and Trotskyism is the result not only of the work of the comrades who signed it—Comrades Bedacht, Patrick, and Weinstone—but embodies many suggestions of Lovestone and~ Pepper also, There are no two lines in the majority of the C. E. C. There is only one political conception; there is only one leadership, which is neither the leadership of Lovestone nor of Pepper, nor of any other individua]. It is the collective Jeadership of the C. E, C. It is a leadership which is based on common policies and on the sup- port of the overwhelming majority of the proletarian membership of our Party. JAY LOVESTONE, December 27, 1923. JOHN PEPPER. insist upon the discussion being con- ducted upon the basis of the real issues and disputed questions as di- rected by the Comintern and not upon such false issues. 6. Outstanding in the Plenum was the total failure of the Central Executive Committee Majority to appreciate the importance of build- ing new industrial unions. for the organization of the unorganized. The Lovestone thesis, with its per- spective of almost endless prosper- ity, failed to find a base for the new unions by failing to see the de- veloping struggles of the most op- pressed sections of the workers. It did not even see the necessity for coordinating the three existing new unions nationally through the T. U. E. L., and the opening up of a per- spective for a new trade union cen- ter, so little did Lovestone under- | submitted to the Party Plenum by stand the problems of organizing|the Minority of the C. E. C., on the the unorganized. The Pepper thesis, |other hand, earnestly and sincerely supported by speeches by Comrade | reviews the objective causes of the Weinstone, laid down an_ even} clearer opportunist perspective by laying a theoretical basis for the liquidation of the new unions and for the rebuilding of the A. F’. of L. 7. The thesis on the present sit- uation and the tasks of the Party, | Right errors committed by both |groups of the Party. The Minority thesis lays down a correct analysis jot the role and perspective of Amer- \ican imperialism, of the radicaliza- tion process which is taking place among the semi-skilled and un- PAINTS LEADERS OF SOVIET UNICN 50 Paintings Will Be Exhibited Soon (Continued from Page One finished colonies show in helping the colonists, giving them house room and making them feel at home} while their houses are being built. “Colony 62,” in the Crimea, has in it ten “mountain Jews,” from Kavkaz, who look like real moun- taineers, -brot their own stone and timber and built their houses within three months, The harvest in the Crimea, says Horowitz is fairly good, as in other parts of the U.S. S. R, outside of the Ukraine, where a lack of rainfall did damage. Pravda Comment ‘A showing of the picture in Mos- cow, states Horowitz, brot much favorable comment in Pravda, Is- vestia, Rabotchie Gazetta, and other papers, Horowitz was born in Russia, came to America in 1905 and studied in Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, which in 1917 bought a still life painting from him for its per- manent collection. He had an exhi- bition in New York last May which was favorably commented upon by | the New York press critics, and as a result of his work in this ex’ for the Russian commission 4 NORRIS APPROVES TRUST DAM BILL Says Plan to Let West Give Contracts O. K. (Continued from Page One |most of the land to be irrigated, | and who want additional supply of water for domestic use and are anxious for hydro-electric power at proposed dam, canal, and power sta- tion. The Johnson-Swing bill pro- vided for this, and at once aroused the organized opposition of the | power companies. ry A senate investigating committee revealed that the power trust spent huge sums of money on propaganda, buying up newspaper editors, priests | and college professors, One Filibuster. The state of Arizona, in which strong, staged an opposition on the grounds that a dam and power sta- tion in California would not suffici- ently protect the interests of Ari- zona, They urged the construction of a reservoir at Glenn Canyon in Arizona, The power companies took advan- | tage of this, and through Senator | Ashurst of Arizona organized a fili- buster which prevented the senate from voting on the Boulder Dam jat the end of last May, cheap rates, demanded that the gov- | ernment itself build and operate the power companies are politically | | 1852 THE SAME DRESS OVER 75 YEARS 1928 ETROPOLITAN SAVINGS ri ‘ASSETS EXCEEDING $30,000,000 Interest starts the Ist of Each Month, Deposits made on or before Jan, 4th, draws interest from January Ist. Interest for 3 months ending Dee. 31 1928, at rate of 4%% 1 per annum an all sums from 85 to $7,500 has been de-| 2 (6) elared payable Jan. 16, 1929, Open Mondays (all day) until 7 P. M. Banking by Mail _ Soctety Accounts Accepted We Sell A. B. A. Travelers Certified Checks ‘Nol THIRD AVE. Cor. 7ST. ! Special Performance ! THE SHANGHAI DOCUMENT and the MINERS’ STRIKE. FILM Sunday, December 30th, at 2:30 p. m. CZECHO-SLOVAK WORKERS’ 3847 EAST 72nd STREET Auspices: Local New York, Workers’ International Relief. For the Benefit of the Textile Workers. HOUSE — Admission 50 Cents — skilled workers, the movement to the | |right of the labor bureaucracy and its role of integrating the trade unions into the war machine of American imperialism, the increas- ing class differentiation on the farms and the urgent neéd of de- veloping the class struggle on the farms, the utmost stress on develop- ing the New Communist Interna- tional line on Negro work, and for a perspective of sharpened cl: lations and class struggles highly intensified by the growing war dan- ger. The Minority thesis lays down a correct line for ss re- opportunism on t against the open opportunism, the danger, which is the main 4 and against the opportunism cove red with Left phrases, the Cannon- Trotsky opposition. 8 The Cannon-Trotsky opposi- tion must be combatted in the most rgetic manner. While playing with revolutionary phrases and ering itself with “Left” words, it is nothing else but opportunism and constitutes a counter-r force. The Party must s the opport evolutionary na lannon opposition nilitantly the demo ities of the renegad Abern, Schachtman, etc.), str to liquidate this opposition in the shortest possible tin The Party |must condemn the bringing in of these renegades to the Party Plenum by the Political Committee Major- ity and endorse the action of the | Minority in voting and speaking against their mittance. The ‘Plenum speech delivered by Cannon |confirms his already evident com- |plete bankruptey. Cannon _ has | joined with all the enemies of the Party and the Comintern. He will Jendeavor to utilize the differences within the Party to further his at- tack against the Party and to fur- ther his anti-Party, counter-revolu- |tionary activities. But the way to counteract these efforts of Cannon is not to slacken the fight aga the Right danger as the Majority |does, but to wage the ficht on two fronts—against both the Right dan- |ger and the Cannon-Trot oppo- sition. The Party must bend all ef- forts to protect the proletarian ele- ments from demoralizing effects of the Trotsky-Cannon opposition. The Minority calls upon the Party to fight determinedly and engygetically against Cannon and for the winning of every worker for the Party and \the Comintern. 9. The reports and speeches of comrades in the Plenum from all over the country, showing many mistakes made in the work, indicate beyond all qu n that the Right danger is the main danger in the? Party. The Lovestone majority has fought resolutely against raising the fight against the Right danger, de- nying that there was any such dan- ger, or any Right wing in the Party, In the resolutions of the May, 1928, Plenum there was no reference to the Right danger or to any Right errors. When the delegation went to Mose the C. E. C. Majority ted h indignation all efforts Minority to point out the ex- ence of the Right danger in our y and to fight against it. This m shows that the Minority in gz the Right danger has done 2 real service to the Party and is mobilizing the Party im spite of the C. Majority, for effective le against the Right danger, finority declares its intention nue its determined struggle against the Right danger as exe sed in the Political Committee jori timation of the ican imperialism imation of the radical- to cor and under ization of the working masses. We will fight just as sharply against this lates tempt of the Political Committee Majority to cover up its ally Right wing orientation by of empty maneuvers. The lls upon the Party mem- uggle against both the er and Trotskyism and Right d, for the u ad Bolshevist pro- letar ip drawn from all grou basis of a correct line for our Party. 10. The discussion at the Plenum contributed greatly toward empha- izing the actuality ef the war dan- ger. ‘The Party must familiarize itself h the d sion which took place as a means of clearing up its understanding of the forces work- ing toward further imperialist wars, The Party st consolidate its ranks and proceed to organize the workers for the struggle against the war danger. All problems now facing the Party the standpoint of this struggle inst the war danger. A success- ful struggle against the war danger and talist rationalization de- mands an intensive fight against the Right danger as the main dah-* ger, against the Trotsky-Cannon op- position, and against reformism and CUT OUT THIS BLANK , eee Sign Put Your Name on This List of GREETINGS! } : must be approached from _ THESE NAMES ARE TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE Birthday Edition of the WHICH IS TO APPEAR JANUARY 5, 1929 Name peri | Remit to Daily Worker, 26-28 Union Square, New York City” SRO COLLECTED BY: NAME . CITY ......