The Daily Worker Newspaper, February 26, 1929, Page 3

Foster’s Right Wing Opportunism and Bittelman - DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1929 Page Three AND UNPRINCIPLEDNESS OF THE OPPOSITION. Recent articles and statements of the leaders of the Opposition carry great significance. They expose the fact that the Opposition, which throughout its entire existence has consisted of a series of un- principled factional formations, and has undergone several crises of disintegration, is now in another crisis of disintegration. The articles of Comrade Foster demonstrate this more clearly than ever before in the history of our Party. Except for the open opportunist and counter-revolutionary Trot- skyist “waste matter’ thrown off in previous crises, the present Opposition leadership has been substantially the same which reached its organizational crystallization after the Party plenum at the end of 1923 with the so-called “Foster-Cannon Thesis’—until the present crisis of its disintegration in which a principal figure, Comrade Fos- ter, has been discarded from the Opposition, which now remains under the undisputed leadership of Comrade Bittelman. In its begin- ning in 1923, the Opposition was under the leadersip of Comrades Foster and Bittelman and Mr. Ludwig Lore and Mr. J. P. Cannon. The original Foster-Bittelman-Lore-Cannon Opposition was never a homogeneous group. It was always a coalition of several groups, with several policies and differing views about basic questions of the class struggle. The Foster-Bittelman-Cannon group was forced by the present leadership of the Party and by repeated intercessions of | the Comintern, after a long struggle, to agree to the expulsion of | Lore, who represented an out-and-out social.democratic tendency. But | even after the expulsion of the social democrat Lore, the unprincipled grouping of the Opposition inevitably became the basin into which all of the weakest, most pessimistic, anti-Party elements irresistibly gravitated; For instance a list of the former leading members of the Oppo- sition who are now outside of the Party would include: Ten former members and candidates of the CEC: Ludwig Lore, J. P. Cannon, J. B. Salutsky, Arne Swabeck, Moritz J. Loeb, Wm. Reynolds, Thomas O'Flaherty, T. R. Sullivan, Max Schachtman, Martin Ahern. Seven former members of the NEC of the YWL: John Edwards, Oliver Carlson, Max Schactman, Barney Mass, A. Glotzer, Joe Angelo, Sidney Borgeson. Twelve former DEC members: Kraska, Boston; Brahtin, Cleveland; Triva, Cleveland; Giganti, Chicago; Bloom, New York; Vincent Dunne, Minnesota; Coover, Minnesota, Skoglund, Minnesota; Hedlund, Minnesota; Buehler, Kansas; Kassin, Kansas; Miller, Agricultural. Ten former leaders in language sections: Finnish section: Askelli, Berg, Hyrske, Halonen (of Boston district); Boman, Alanne. Italian section: J. Cannata. Russian section: A. Brailoysky. Hungarian section: Baski. Five miscellaneous: Dr. Aronson, New York; Dr. Konikov, Boston; Dr. Powell, California; Helen Judd, Chicago; Lou Mor- rison, Detroit. ee It is significant that of this list of 44 former leading members of et Opposition: who are now out of the Party, not less than 30 are non-proletarian; and among the few who are proletarians only one is of the basic industries, the others being of the upper stratum of skilled labor. y When, under the leadership of Cannon, the second open eruption of Trotskyism came the American Party, it was no accident that absolutely every Trotskyite, every enemy of _the Party discovered, was found in the ranks of the Opposition’s factional organization. The Foster-Bittelman group, upon discovering the Trotskyist organiza- tional activities within their caucus (‘organiational” in distinction from the political line of Cannon which had long been of a degen- erate Trotskyist character)—the Opposition required weeks of con- sideration inside of its group caucus and in secrecy from the Party, before it could reach the necessary conclusion that it must inform the Party of the conspiracy against the Party and the Comintern. Only many weeks later did the Opposition come to realize the. imper- missibility of such a course, which it finally conceded was a mistake. Within the past month the present crisis of disintegration of the Opposition became manifest when the entire C.E.C. group of the Op- position, now under the leadership of Bittelman, reacted to the merci- less criticism of the Central Committee in regard to its opportunist position on questions of social reformism. Under the impact of the C.E.C. criticism and the iron pressure of ninety per cent of the entire Party membership, the Opposition, under the leadership of Bittelman, has been forced to disavow its former position upon this very im- portant subject, and at the same time publicly to repudiate Comrade Foster whom they now concede to be a representative of a basically wrong line and basically wrong conclusions about the fundamental questions of the class struggle and Party policies. A HISTORY OF UNPRINCIPLED COALITIONS AND CREEPING DISINTEGRATION The original Foster group (Foster, Swabeck, Johnstone, etc.) in its fist stage of development within the Party represented in fact a trade union group and at the same time carried with it very strong opportunist inclinations. In its second stage of development, the Foster-Cannon-Bittelman group lost the bulk of its trade union fol- lowers who came over to the support of the Central Committee. This change was especially notable after the narrowing down of the Amer- ican Federation of Labor and its going so sharply and openly to the . Right, which cut these comrades off from the A. F. of L. unions, and more particularly is this noticeable after the organization of the new ‘Left unions, in which these Opposition comrades—largely by reason of their misunderstanding and minimizing the role of the organization of the unorganized and of new unions—these Opposition comrades did not play any substantial role. With the loss of the bulk of their trade union followers to the Central Committee the Opposition group of leaders underwent a rapid decline, tending more and more to be- come a pure and simple opportunist group, at the same time trying to cover up its Right wing policies with many pseudo-Left phrases. The tendency toward the development of the Opposition group into a consolidated Right wing was very strong at the time, following the 1925 Convention, when the Party reorganization swept out of the Party the bulk of the Right elements in the Finnish federation and of the petty bourgeois section of the old Jewish federation which had constituted the backbone of the Foster group but which left the Party because of their opposition to the reorganization. The present split between Comrade Foster and the comrades now led by Comrade Bittelman is a reflection of an organic change in the composition of the Opposition. Today Bittelman is the head of the original Foster group. All Central Executive Committee members and leading functionaries of the former Foster group (minus the Cannon elements, now out of the Party)* today accept the leadership of Comrade Bittelman. Comrade Foster has now not one single fol- lower in any of the leading committees of the Party, but is still able to maintain his hold on some of the rank and file elements of the Opposition, and it must be admitted that among these are the most backward, undeveloped elements in the Party. Lys The ideological cleavage between Foster and Bittelman can be - understood only in the light of the sudden shake-up of ‘the Opposition caused by the unexpected previous crisis in which Cannon was vomited forth. The political marriage between Foster and Bittelman as nom- inally joint leaders was a marriage of necessity, artificially produced by the sudden and weakening loss of Cannon who had heen (next to ’ Lore) the ideological and always organizational leader of the Opposi- tion for six and a half years (except for a period of about two weeks jn 1925). The present ideological divorce between Bittelman and | Foster brings out in bold relief the opportunistic streaks in Foster's political line, and at the same time exposes the slightly differing forms of Comrade Bittelman’s opportunism. Comrade Foster’s poli- tical ideology today represents a mixture of opportunistic features distinctly bearing the marks of A. F, of L. trade unionism, together with another form of opportunism which has its origin in syndicalism. The Bittelman group minus Foster, who was the last of the | Opposition leaders who had any mass connections whatsoever at any time, remains today a Right sectarian clique completely divorced from the realities of the American class struggle, without any roots in the working class or in the Party membership, utterly devoid of understanding of Marxist-Leninist tactics and trying in vain to find any and every sort of Left phrases with which to cover its opportun- ism. The smash-up of the Foster-Bittelman coalition brings to light a mass of inconsistencies which show the unprincipled character upon which this group has been, built from the beginning. A few weeks ago the Opposition through the voice of Comrade Blankenstein spoke of Comrade Foster’s so-called “theory of capitalist-efficiency-socialism” as constituting the “most important theoretical contribution made to Communist analysis by any comrade outside the Russian Communist Party.” The compliments were mutual, for Comrade Foster at the December Plenum of the Central Committee characterized Bittelman as the best Marxian in America and himself as only a “humble work- er in the vineyard of Bittelman.” Today Comrade Bittelman declares that Foster’s theory “liqui- dates everything connected with Communism!” Today Comrade Foster complaints about the “impermissible methods” used by Bittel- man, and tries to prove in a whole series of long articles that Bittel- man has not the faintest understanding of the basic tendencies of American imperialism, of the real role of social and bourgeois reform- ism, of the perspectives of the American Federation of Labor and of the new unionism. The Party has never agreed with Blankenstein and Bittelman on their evaluation of Foster as the leading theoretician of five contin- ents minus the Soviet Union, and the Party most certainly disagreed with Foster’s designating Bittelman as the foremost Marxian in the western hemisphere. But there is every reason to agree with Bittel- man when he states today that “it is necessary that the Party shall reject Foster’s wrong line” and that this whole conception “liquidates everything connected with Communism,” The Party does not dis- agree, however, with Comrade Foster’s characterizing the methods of Bittelman as dishonest and unfair factional fighting. THE UNDERESTIMATION OF SOCIAL REFORMISM: THE MAIN ISSUE AND MOST SERIOUS ERROR OF FOSTER. The basic mistake committed by Comrade Foster and Bittelman and the entire Opposition is the dangerous underestimation of the role of social reformism. Bittelman and the entire leading group of the Opposition accuse Foster today with putting forward the “theory of the declining role of social reforraism.” The Bittelman group is correct in this accusa- tion. But Foster is correct when he states and proves that his wrong line is not a “new line” but it is “the old line” of the entire Opposi- tion. In one of his last articles Foster admits, at least in words, his “chief error” in the following way: “My articles on capitalist efficiency socialism pointed this out. Their chief error, as I have already indicated, like in my article in the ‘Communist,’ was in not making it clear that in spite of this partial merger of social reformism and bourgeois reformism, social reformism with its: insidious illusions and powerful base among the organized labor aristocracy, remains the most dangerous kind of reformism, that kind upon which the capitalists always depend in their crisis, the last bulwark against the proletarian revolution.” Certainly it is very strange that Comrade Foster is now forced to admit that even in his articles about “capitalist efficiency social- ism” which, he modestly stated, constituted the greatest contribu- tion to Communist analysis outside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, there is contained a “chief error.” But it is even much stranger that he has not the faintest understanding of the funda- mentals of these problems. wr The article of Comrade Foster, “The Decline of the A, F. of L.” in the February issue of the “Communist,” contains the following statement: “The weakness of the theory of Comrades Pepper, Loye- stone and Weinstone (the rebuilding of the A. F. of L.) is that they fail to see that the main reliance of the employers for prop- agating reformist illusions among the workers, is not so much the A. F. of L. and the S. P., as their own engineer-economist- company union apparatus; that in this period, altho the A. F. of L. and the S.P. are in decline, the Propagation of reformist illu- sions is on the increase.” . Already the editorial of the “Communist,” which criticized “some serious errors in Comrade Foster’s article on the American Federa- tion of Labor” pointed out: “Comrade Foster’s erroneous conception of and lack of un- derstanding of the development of social reformism and new unionism led inevitably to a harmful underestimation of the role and influence of social reformism in this country ... The whole conception of Comrade Foster and his associates in the Party, which looks so radical at first glance, is in reality an opportunist conception, a Right deviation from the correct line of the Com- munist International. Our Party must reject this conception, be- cause it would decrease the vigor of our struggle against social reformism, would shake the faith of the workers in the possi- bility of building new unions, would confuse the Party member- ship about the counter-revolutionary social function of the labor aristocracy, and would lead to a complete abandonment of the three million workers organized in the A. F. of L. and the Rail- re Brotherhoods to the most corrupt labor bureaucracy of the world.” a The erroneous theory of Comrade Foster means that the main danger in the labor movement today is not social reformism, but direct bourgeois reformism. Comrade Foster is in hopeless confu- sion regarding the relations of bourgeois and social reformism. Foster failed to see the basic difference between bourgeois reformism and social reformism. Although social reformism means the acceptance of the ideology of the bourgeoisie, it differs from plain bourgeois reformism because it APPEARS in the mask of working class ideol- ogy, because, though it is an agency of the bourgeoisie (within the working class), it appears as an instrument of the labor movement, Foster declares that the main enemy against which all fire must be concentrated is the growing bourgeois reformism, that the American Federation of Labor with its social reformism, is in decline, is rele- gated to second place and can be neglected today. He fails to see the fact that three million workers are still organized in the A. F. of L. and in the reformist labor brotherhoods. He fails to see the fact that the ideological influence of the A. F. of L. and other re- formist organizations is much larger than their membership and it has a detrimental effect upon the ideology of many millions of un- skilled, unorganized workers also. The main mistake of Comrade Foster in this connection is that he fails to sce that tho the A. F, of L. is merging more and more completely with the industrial and governmental apparatus of the bourgeoisie (there is no other Jabor organization in the world which is as much part of the apparatus of capitalism as the A. F. of avi in this respect only the Fascist trade unions can be compared with it), there is still a difference between the openly bourgeois institu- tions of capitalism and the A. I. of L. which is an agency of. capital- ism within the labor movement. The A. F. of L. tries to appear as an institution of the working class, It is an agency of the bourgeoisie but it is this within the labor movement, and utilizing certain traditions of the labor move- ment. Foster fails to see that precisely for this reason, the A. F’. of L. is much more dangerous than any other agency of the bour- geoisic, that precisely for this reason, the A. F: of L., the socialist party, the railroad brotherhoods, in one word social reformism, is the main danger. Foster fails to see that the fire must be concen- trated against the A. I’. of L. and socialist party and other agencies of social reformism, if we want to free the working class from the influence of the bourgeoisie. In his article in the “Communist,” Foster identified the decline of the A. F. of L. with the decline of the influence of social reform- ism. This is basically wrong. The numerical decline of the A. F. of L. and the socialist party does not by itself mean the declining influence of social reformism. In his most recent articles, Foster tries to develop a new theory, stating that he never identified the decline of the A. F. of L. with the decline of social reformism gen- erally. But this is an afterthought which was conceived under the pressure of criticism. If it were true that Foster did not identify the decline of the A. F. of L. with the decline of social reformism, then why did he state in his article in the “Communist” (which was approved and defended by Bittelman until a draft of the C. I. letter & Pao | was received) that not the A. F, of L., and not social reformism, but direct bourgeois reformism is the main danger? Foster is con- fused by the fact that the bourgeoisie follows, on the one hand, an open-shop policy and wants to eradicate the trade unions as much as possible, but on the other hand, it uses the A. F. of L, as its agency in the working class. But this is only a seeming contradiction in the policies of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is against any organ- izations of the workers, even of skilled workers, but at the same time it tries to corrupt these organizations wherever they exist and util- izes them for its own purposes. The bourgeoisie tries to prevent the organization of the unorganized, especially of the huge masses of the unskilled, proletarian elements, and even of the stratum of the labor aristocracy, but at the same time it tries to drive a wedge into the working class by splitting the ranks of the proletariat, by transforming the organizations of the labor aristocracy into agencies of capitalism to penetrate and poison the labor movement with bour- geois ideology. In one of his articles “As to. New Lines and Old Lines,” Comrade Foster tries to prove that not only he himself but the entire Minority and Majority were guilty of the same mistake of underestimation of the role of social reformism. Regarding Bittelman and the Minor- ity, Foster’s arguments are convincing. It is a fact that Foster represents the “old line” of the Foster-Bittelman Opposition, which most vehemently denied all possibilities of the further existence or growth of the A. F. of L., which saw a rapid decline of social re- formism as a factor in the labor movement, which refused to see anything but a nation-wide, general, already accomplished and fin- ished. radicalization of the “bulk” of the American working class. Foster is correct in stating that the line as contained in his article in the “Communist” is not a “new line” but it is the basic line of the entire Opposition, now abandoned by Bittelman and his group. But Foster is absolutely wrong when he puts forward the charge that the Majority of the Central Committee, that the Central Exe- cutive Commitee itself, was in any comparable sense ever guilty of. underestimating the role of social reformism. Foster says that in underestimating social reformism, the whole Party showed a sign of “American exceptionalism,” that the entire Party, Minority and Majority, nad the erroneous conception that our fire must be con- centrated first of all, against bourgeois reformism and not so much against social reformism. He says that only the draft of the forth- coming Comintern letter to the Party Convention had the effect of changing the mind of Minority as well as Majority. This is true so far as the Minority and Bittelman is concerned but it is a slander so far as the Central Committee is concerned. The Theses on the General Political and Economic Situation, and the resolution against the Right Danger and’ Trotskyism, which were adopted at the De- cember Plenum cf the Central Executive Committee, at a time when there did not exist any draft of the forthcoming Comintern letter, ALREADY declared that social reformism is the main danger and that America shows the most comprehensive system of social re- formism. The Thesis contains a special chapter, “Fight Against Social Reformism and for a Mass Communist Party” and gives the following analysis: “The ideology of the trade union bureaucracy and their so- ciglist party co-workers is definitely bourgeois and is an expres- m of the rankest social reformism. The social basis of this ideology is the world hegemony of American imperialism, the huge amount of superprofits extorted by it from all sections of the world, the broad stratum of labor aristocracy which still en- joys its privileges. American social reformism with its manifold schemes of class collaboration is today the model of all imperial- ists the world over and of their social democratic lackeys who iry to pattern them in order to paralyze the class struggle. The ideology and organization of social reformism is the most dan- gerous obstacle to the development of a mass Communist Party. We must fight it ruthlessly in order to hasten the development of a mass Communist Party in the United States. It is necessary to destroy the ideological base of the reactionary trade union bureaucracy and their socialist partners.” The resolution “Mobilize the Party for the Struggle Against the Right Danger and Trotskyism” (adopted by the December Plenum of the Central Committee) links up social reformism and the Right Danger in our Party in the following way: “The United States of America has today the biggest, most corrupt labor aristocracy, the most comprehensive system of social reformism, which serves as the model for the poisonous ‘Americanization’ of the labor movement of the whole world, which creates an atmosphere of class collaboration, labor-jingo- ism, and pacifist propaganda round the Communist Party. The lack of resistance to the influence of the labor aristocracy, of social reformism, labor-jingoism and pacifism constitutes the Right danger in the Workers (Communist) Party of America today.” Comrade Foster is obviously not dealing with facts when he puts forward the accusation that the Central Committee did not character- ize social reformism as the main enemy which must be fought tooth and nail by the whole Party,—but he is excited and tries confusedly to find “accomplices” to share with him the blame for the crime of underestimation of social reformism. But the whole Party mem- bership knows the facts. It was not the Central Committee of our Party which had to wait for a draft of the forthcoming Comintern letter in order to clarify its position towards social reformism, The December Plenum in its theses and resolutions gave a clear analysis of the nature and significance of social reformism in the United States: FIRST: The social basis of the ideology of social reformism is imperialism and the world hegemony of American imperialism, the huge amount of super-profits extorted by it from all sections of the world, the broad stratum of labor aristocracy. SECOND: Instead of putting forward the erroneous theory of Foster about the decline of social reformism, the Central Com- mittee stated that America has today the most comprehensive system of social reformism, which serves as the model for the poisonous Americanization of the labor movement of the whole world. ‘THIRD: The Central Committee saw clearly that social re- formism is the most dangerous obstacle to the development of a mass Communist Party. FOURTH: The Central Executive Committee has clearly shown the connection between reformism in the external labor movement with the Right danger within the Party, stating that a lack of resistance to the influence of the labor aristocracy of social reformism, labor jingoism and pacifism constitutes the Right danger in the Party today. The issue of social reformism is not one among issues facing the Party today. The understanding of the true nature of social reformism, the correct estimation of the strength of the social re- formist influence of the American Federation of Labor, the adequate evaluation of the influence of social reformism on the huge masses of the working class, is the central question for the Communist Party today. Comrade Bittelman and his Fosterless group are correct when they state that the basically erroneous theory of Foster about the decline of social reformism constitutes a line “which affects not only our trade unio work but also every phase of Party activity.” Foster, who has a basically wrong line regarding the role of social reform- ism and the struggle against it, cannot but have incorrect policies not only on the whole field of trade union work but on every impor- tant question of any phase of the general activities of our Party. Without a correct understanding of the role of social reformism in the period of imperialism, one cannot understand the role and func- tion of the Communist International, which was born in the struggle against social reformism. One cannot understand the role and great- ness of Lenin, who considered as the first mission of his life, the uncompromising, relentless fight againt opportunism and social re- formism. One cannot understand: the nature and role of the Right danger, which is today the main danger facing the Comintern and the struggle against it, because the Right is but the influence of social reformism upon the Party. The “chief error” of Comrade Foster is the underestimation of social reformism, as was stated already by the December Plenum of the Central Committee, declaring correctly that the whole platform of the Foster-Bittelman Opposition “leads to en underestimation of the power and influence of the !abor aristocracy on the American working class, and... tends to prevent the fight against the influ- PRE-CONVENTION DISCUSSION ence of social reformism which is still the dominant ideology of the American labor movement. FOSTER’S ORIENTATION TOWARDS THE SKILLED WORKERS Comrade Foster has lost the confidence of his own group, after having long ago lost almost all of his followers in the Party. First he wanted to be a “practical” mass leader but isolated himself from the masses. Later he ventured into the fields of theory but lost his bearings completely. He started out in the recent discussion with his theory of the decline in the importance of social reformism, but then he admitted his “chief error” (which he should have called his complete error) — but all in vain, for he winds up his confession of sins with a return to his first love, the orientation toward the skilled labor aristocracy. Comrade Foster's last article entitled “The Wrong Theories of Com- rades Pepper and Bittelman” affords an instructive comparison be- tween Comrade Foster’s amazingly open opportunist orientation to- ward the skilled workers and their A. F. of L. traditions, and the other hand Bittelman’s sectarian opportunism which he now cizes in this “greatest Marxian in America.” Comrade Foster writ “Comrade Bittelman’s theory also tends TOO MECHA) ALLY AND TOO COMPLETELY TO SEPARATE THE U? SKILLED IN THE NATIONAL UNION CENTERS. We are now entering upon a prolonged period of dual unionism. The new revolutionary center, the TUEL, will be based upon the masses of semi-skilled and unskilled, and the old unions are based upon the labor aristocracy. BUT THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE DIVISION OF THE SKILLED AND UNSKILLED BE. TWEEN THE TWO CENTERS IS EXACT OR THAT WE SHALL ACQUIESCE IN IT. Such ideas lead straight to the abandonment of the old unions to Green and company. We must realize that there will be war to the knife between the two centers for the control of the masses. THE MAJOR TASK of the TUEL, likewise our Party, will be to organize the unorganized masses of unskilled and semi-skilled; but IT WILL ALSO FIGHT TO WIN AWAY THE SKILLED AND OTHER WORKERS AFFI. LIATED TO THE A. F. OF L. UNIONS. On the other hand, the A. F. of L. will fight not only to control the skilled workers, but also to defeat our efforts to organize the unskilled and tu bring these under its own treacherous influence. Failure to sec this OVERLAPPING STRUGGLE means not to understand the strike-breaking role of the A. F. of L., it leads to quitting the old unions.” (Our emphasis.) Comrade Foster’s use of the term “dual unionism” in this in- stance cannot be merely careless use of language. In it th evidence of two characteristic errors of Comrade Foster: fi failure to see that the outright strike-breaking role of the bureau- cratic organizations fighting the new unions does not permit the conception of parallel roles—as “dual” organizations competing in the same field of organizing the unorganized. Comrade Foster has never yet been able to see the role of the trade union bureaucracy as unqualifiedly that of agents of the bourgeoisie, as shown by his frequent desire to base his criticism of the bureaucracy upon its supposed failure to fight, or inactivity. Second, Comrade Foster fails to see the enormous and absolute importance and supremacy of the work of organizing the unorganized (as shown long ago in his condemnation of the Party’s organization of the Passaic workers over the heads of the A. F. of L. as “dual unionism”). It is a chronic failing of Comrade Foster when he here denies the division between the skilled and unskilled strata of the working classIn other words he rejects Lenin’s analysis of the crystalliza- tion of a labor aristocracy as an inevitable development in the period of imperialism. He admits that the major taks of the new unions and of our Party will be to organize the unskilled and semi-skilled workers, but at the same time he betrays his chronic tendency, now developed to a whole policy of basing the entire tactics of the Com- munist Party and the Left wing upon the hope of winning away the skilled workers during this period from the A. F. of L. This policy, as suggested by Comrade Foster, carries great significance. It shows that Foster does not see any basic difference between the function of the old trade union center, the A. F. of L., and the new trade union center, the TUEL. According to Comrade Foster it appears as a matter of emphasis. The A. F. of L. lays more emphasis upon the skilled workers, where- as the new trade union center will lay more emphasis upon the un- skilled workers—and this seems to be conceived as a difference in the degree of usefulness to the working class on the part of the one and the other trade union center. Stretching beyond any reasonable sense the relatively small aspect that we will work among the unions of the highest skilled workers, Comrade Foster derives the justification for fighting against the orientation of the whole line of the Party and of the Left toward the struggle to win the masses of the unskilled workers industry. Certainly there is no part of the American labor move- ment—not even the unions of the most skilled in the A. F. of L.— where the Left wing struggle will not be carried on to the extreme of our capacity, auxiliary to the Party’s main task of organizing the unorganized, the basic, decisive section of the working class. But there is no doubt that Comrade Foster’s extreme solicitude in this case means that he utterly fails to see the imperialist phenomenon of the splitting of the working class, and that therefore he conceives of the social basis of both the old trade union center, the A. F. of L. and the new trade union center, the TUEL, as being essentially tha same. There can be no doubt that this is the most dangerous opportun- ist conception expressed in the course of the whole pre-conyention discussion. Comrade Foster reveals in this statement an out-and- out opportunist conception which dangerously blurs the dividing line between Communism and social democracy. It is quite within the logic of the situation that Comrade Foster is compelled to shout very loudly at the present time that the Central Committee of our Party is opportunist. This last article of Comrade Foster reveals clearly that when he fails to see that social reformism constitutes the greatest danger to the working class, and its reflec- tion in the Right danger within the Party the greatest danger to the Party itself, Comrade Foster is himself taking the position of a Right opportunist. Because social reformism is so similar to his own ideology, because there is so much kinship between the ideology spread by the leadership of the A. F. of L. and the conceptions of Comrade Foster—precisely for this reason Comrade Foster is unable to see the danger of social reformism and evolves a whole “theory” of the “decline” of social reformism. The sharp contrast between the correct Communist conception of the Central Committee and Comrade Foster’s dangerous, half-social democratic, out-and-out opportunist conception, is shown by the fol- lowing formulation of the thesis of the December Plenum of our Party Central Committee: “The decisive orientation of the Party must be AWAY FROM THE LABOR ARISTOCRACY AND TOWARDS THE REAL PROLETARIAN MASSES The face of the Party must be sharply turned in the direction of the organization of the tnorganized, to building new unions in the heavy industries, among the real proletarian millions oft the UNSKILLED AND SEMI-SKILLED WORKERS AND NEGRO MASSES.” During the course of the whole Party fight in the last six years, Comrade Foster labored under the burden of this opportunist conception of orientation towards the skilled elements of the working class. There was a time, in 1922, when Foster, as a newly converted Communist, maintained the illusion that thru the amalgamation movement and an unprincipled struggle for office in the old unions, we will be able to conquer the A. F. of L. with its entire machine, that it will be enough if we will oust from office a thin upper layer of the corrupt bureaucracy. There was a time when Comrade Foster maintained the illusion that the American Federation of Labor may take the initiative in forming a labor party. In his 1923, November Thesis, he, together with Bittelman, Cannon and Lore put forward the policy that we shall take the initiative in the formation of a labor party only if the American Federation of Labor will not organize a labor party in the meantime. It was not an accident that Comrade Foster denounced the pre- sent leadership of the Party (then a’ Minority at the 1923 Party Convention) that we were followers of a policy of dual unionism be- cause we suggested the organization of the unorganized not only as 8 policy introduced in the American Federation of Labor unions, but ipa (Coniinued on Page Five) $ ease SECTION Opposition’s Right Sectanianism STATEMENT OF CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF WORKERS [COMMUNIST] PARTY OF AMERICA THE DISINTEGRATION