The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 31, 1930, Page 4

SURSCRIPTION RATT: By Mail (in New York City only): $8.00 a year; By Mail (outside of New York City): $6.00 a year; i Es ‘ pale b-¥-22)) blished by the Comproda Saily Re cc ess and mail ly Publishing Co., 1 Y. Telephone Stuyve: to the Daily W rg at 28-28 Union DATW( Gaily $2.50 three months six months; $2.00 three months a r Page Four Ss $4 $3.50 six months; —-———— aos ] se cere ai: Central Organ oi the Conimunist Party of the THE SOCIALIST T MATION OF THE SOVIET VILLAGE The following is the text of the speech delivered by Comrade Stalin at the Congress of the Marxist Agrarian Research, on 27th of December, 1929.—Ed. ndamental fact of social-econ- at the present juncture, a fact at- ting general attention, is the fact of the growth of the collectivization movement, haracteristic feature of the present tion movement that not only sepa- the rural poor are joining the ive farms, as been the case hither- also the masses of the middle peas- This means that the collectivization changing from a movement al groups and strata of the ry into a movement embrac- nd millions of the main mass ntry. Here we find, inter al the explanation of the enormously important fact that the collecti tion movement, which has assumed the character of a mighty and ever-gathering anti-kulak avalanche, is sweep- ing the resistance of the kulak from its path, breaking the kulak power, and clearing the road for the progress of socialist reconstruc- tion in the village. our ng individu king pe millions the pe practical suc- ism is jus- But although our pride in the cesses in the building up of soci tified, the same cannot be said of the success of our theoretical work in the sphere of econ- omy in general and of agriculture in particu- lar. We must acknowledge that in theoretic thought we have not kept pace with our prac- tical success, that there exists a certain gap between our practical success and the develop- ment of the theoretic idea. But it is nec sary that our theoretical work not only kee! pace with the practical, but precedes it, and lies the weapons for the practical attain- ment of the victory of socialism. I shall not deal at any length here with the import 3 We are aware that a theory; when it is a real theory, gives those putting it into practice the power of orienta- tion, clarity of perspective, faith in their work, confidence in the victory of our cause. All this is and must be of enormous importance for the cause of our socialist reconstruction. It is unfortunate t sphere, he sphere of the th al working out of ions concerning our economy, we are be- n we other- se explain the fact that on questions of our economy, in our social political life, various petty bourgeois theories are Tow can we explain why these and this theorising have not yet been ted 2s they should be? How can we ex- plami why a number of fundamental asser- tions of t-Leninist political economy, r most effectual antidote to is and petty bourgeois theories, are to be forgotten, are not popularized reason r press, and for some are not placed in the foreground? without an in 2 basis of Mar: » bourgeois theo , the complete the class enemy cannot be won? nods of actual nio being new methods of d mice problems of the transition per- tions of the N.E.P., of the > tempo of reconstruction, of al- of Party policy, are being tackled in a If we are not to fall behind ac- v ’ proceed to tackle tandpoint of the is impossible to confusing the workers, ‘and other- ch possess the tenacity ‘ e exterminated. It is ating the bourgeois prejudices in + that the positions of Marx- established. must n acterize at least one of idices masquerading under and to demonstrate its in- adeauacy in the light of some of. the knotty reconstruction. oroblems of ou 1. The “Balance” Theory. The so-called theory of the “balance” among he sectors of our national economy is still current amc Communists. This theory has, of course, nothing in common with Marxism. Despite th it is propagate! by a number of Right comrades. -On the basis of this theory t is assumed that we have in the first place a sector—thi a kind of box—and be- a non-socialist, or, if you like, a sector, another box. These two lie in different spheres and slide peace- 0xe: fully forward, without concerning themselves about one another. Geometry has taught us that parallel lmes do not meet. But the authors of this remarkable theory believe that ‘heir parallel lines will meet some day, and shat the result will be socialism. This theory omits to observe that there are classes stand- ing behind these so-called “boxes,” and that | the boxes are being kept in motion by a des- oerate class struggle, a life and death strug- zle, a struggle on the principle of “who leads whom?” + It is not difficult to comprehend that this theory has nothing in common with Leninism. {t is not difficult to comprehend that this theory pursues the objective aim of defending the individual peasant farm, of furnishing the kulak elements with a “new” theoretical -weapon in their struggle against the collective farms, and of discrediting the positions of the collective farms. And yet this theory is still current in our press. It cannot be said that it is being seriously combated by our theoreti- | eians, much less annihilatingly refuted. This inadequacy can only be explained by the back- -wardness of our theoretical thought. And yet all that would have been necessary was to apply to the treasury of Marxism, to . bring forth the theory of reproduction, to op- pose this to the theory of the balance of the sectors—and there would haye been no atom left of the latter theory. For the Marxist theory of reproduction teaches that the pres- ent state of society cannot develop without ac- cumulating from yedr to year, and an accu- mulation is impossible unless reproduction ex- pands from year to year. This is clear and comprehensible. Our great centralized social- ty is developing on the basig of the | 4eads to the impoverishment of the peasant -Ma t theory of reproduction for its dim increase from year to year. It is accu- mulating, and striding forward with Seven League boots. But our national economy does not consist of our large industry alone. On the contrary, the small peasant f still pre- dominates in our national econo: Can we then maintain that our small peasant farms are developing on the principle of increased re- production? No, we cannot maintain this. Our small peasant agriculture not only fails to increase its reproduction yearly, but has not even always the possibility of realizing a sin- gle reproduction. Is it then possible for our socialist industry to continue to accelerate its speed of development, when it relies for sup- port on such an agricultural basis as that of the system of small peasant farms, incapable of increasing reproduction, and yet represent- ing the preponderant force in our national economy? No, by no means. the Soviet power and the work of socialist reconstruction depend for support for a more or less lengthy period on two different bases: on the basis of the greatest and most concentrated’ social industry, and on the ba: of the most back- ward, scattered small p ant farms, with their commodity economy? No, this is impos- sible. This would be bound to end sooner or later with complete collapse of the whole na- tional economy. What is the remedy? The remedy lies in enlarging the agricultural units, in rendering agriculture capable of accumula- tion, of increased reproduction, and in thus reorganizing the agricultural basis of national economy. But how are the peasant farms to be combined to form larger, units? en- There are two w which the agricult grafting capitalism : the capitalist way, in units are enlarged by upon them, and which and to the development of capitalist under ings in agriculture. We have rejected w om this for it is incompatible with Soviet econ- There is a second way: the socialist way, in which agriculture is developed in the collective uniertaking and Soviet farm. This way leads to the combination of the small peasant farms in large collective ones, technically and scien- tifically equipped, and results in the expulsion of capitalist elements from agriculture, We are taking this second way. Either one or the other! Either back to capitalism or for- ward to socialism. there cannot be one. There is no third way and The “balance” theory and its assumption that this third way may be reckoned with renders the theory Utopian and anti-Marxist. All that is needed is to confront this theory of the “balance” of the sectors by Marx’ theory of reproduction, and the “balance” collapses. Why do our ist agrarian researchers not do this? Who is benefitted by this propagation of the riliculous theory of “balance” in our pr whilst the Marxist theory of reproduction hides ist light under a bushel? 2. The Theory of the “Automatic Develop- ment” of the Building up of Socialism. We now come to a second prejudice of poli- tical economy, to a second theory of the bour- geois type. I refer to the theory of the “auto- matie development” of socialist construction. This theory has nothing in common with Mar ism, but is none the less being zealously pro- pagated by our comrades in the Right camp. The authors of this theory assert appro mately: Capitalism once existed in this coun- try, industry developed on the capitalist basis, and the village followed the capitalist town spontaneously an! automatically, and assumed the image of the capitalist town. . Since this was the case under capitalism, why should the same not follow under Soviet economics, why should the village, the petty bourgeois farm, not automatically follow the socialist town, and become transformed of itself in the image of the social On this reasoning the authors of this theory conclude that the vil- lage could of itself follow the socialist town. Hence the question arises: Is it worth while for us to exert ourselves organizing Soviet farms and collective agricultural undertakings; is it worth while disputing, when in any case the village may follow the socialist town? Here we haye another theory the objective aim of which is to furnish fresh weapons to the capitalist elements in the village in their strug- gle against the collective organizations. The anti-Marxist character of this theory is beyond all doubt. Is it not extremely strange that our theoreticians are not taking the trouble to ex- tirpate this peculiar theory, which is causing so much confusion in the minds of our prac- tical workers on the collective farms? There can be no doubt that the leading role played by the socialist state towards the small peasant village is of great and inestimable value. Upon this basis industry performs its task of reorganizing agriculture. But does this factor suffice to cause the small peasant village to follow of itself the socialist recon- stvuction of the town? No, it does not suffice. Under capitalism the village followed the town | spontaneously, for the reason that capitalist economy in the town and the commodity econ- omy of the small peasant belong essentially to the same type of economy. It need not be said that the small peasant system of econ- omy is not yet a capitalist economy. But fun- damentally it belongs to the same type of economy as the capitalist, for it is founded on | the private ownership of the means of produc- tion. Lenin was right a thousand times when he referred, in his marginal observations on Comrade Bukharin’s “Economy of the trans- formation period,” to the “commodity capital- ist tendency of the peasantry” as opposed to the “socialist tendency of the proletariat.” (Lenin’s emphasis. J. St.) This is the ex- planation of why “small projuction generates, daily and hourly, elementarily and on a mass scale, capitalism and the bourgeoisie” (Lenin). Can it be asserted that small peasant com- modity economy represents fundamentally the same type of economy as the socialist produc- tion of the town? It is obvious that this can- not be asserted without breaking with Marx- ism. Otherwise Lenin would not have said that “so long as we live in a small peasant country, capitalism has a firmer economic basis in Russia than Communism.” In order that the small peasant village should follow the socialist town, it is necessary above all that socialist large scale economies should be RANSFOR- Stamp Out Starvation! Demand Work or Wages! By Fred Ellis Sandino Must Answer to the Anti-Imperialists By ALBERT MOREAU. OLLOWING the news which appeared in “El Universal’ of Mexico City, reprinted in the capitalist press of the U, A., to the effect that Sandino received a bribe of $60,000 for giving up the struggle in Nicaragua, the Gen- eral, who is very fond of the high-sounding title he gave himself, affixed that title to a statement on January 6, branding the news as “a calumny engineered by agents of the Yankee pirates.” % Sandino’s statement was addressed to Hem- man Laborde, secretary of the Communist Par- ty of Mexico. But Sandino did not rely on clearing himself before those who had support- ed the struggle for independence of ‘Nicaragua. | Instead he broadcasted the “denial” to the very capitalist press which has always scorned and attacked him and rejoiced each time the U. S. marines had slaughtered those who fought with him. Nor is his statement satisfactory in so far as making unequivocal answer to questions more important than whether or not he received $60,000 more or } These are questions which relate to his conduct, whether that con- duct be purchased or not. Moreover, his.state- ment is unsatisfactory in the light of new ‘de- yelopments which compel those who earnestly supported and still support the fight against U. S. imperialism in Nicaragua, to point out the widened gap between Sandino and the anti- imperialist movement. Raised By World Support. The fact that Sandino addressed his state- ment to the Mexican Communist Party, is a self-acknowledgement on his part, that San- dino’s fight—while it was a fight—got uncon- ditional support, perhaps too unconditional, from the Communist movement of the whole world; that if it had not been for the Anti- Imperialist League, the Hands Off Nicaragua Committee and the world proletariat, Sandino would have remained isolated and unknown. But in spite of his lack of any program for organizing the workers and peasants, his mak- ing of the struggle purely on™a- military basis, the desire to aid these masses to free them- selves from the oppressive rule of U. S. imper- ialism, led the All-American Anti-Imperialist League and the Communist Parties to loan wide and active support to the armed struggle Sandino led. Early in 1929, a sharp turn was made by Sandino, which marked the beginning of his departure from the anti-imperialist movement. Acting without the considered judgment of the anti-imperialist movement, and proceeding upon his own, he issued a call to all Latin- American governments (ignoring the fact that these governments are as fully lackeys of im- perialism as is the Moncada “government” of Nicaragua) for a special conference proposed by him to be held in Buenos Aires where an agreement should be reached whereby these lackey governments should build the canal thru transferred to the village, in the form of So- viet farms and collective undertakings, and form the basis of socialism which will then lead forward the main masses of the peas- antry, unier the Buidance of the socialist town. The matter is clear. The theory of the “automatic development” of struction is an anti-Marxist theory. The so- cialist town must lead the small peasant vil- lage, introducing Soviet farms and collective undertakings, and reorganizing the village on a new socialist foundation. It is remarkable that the anti-Marxist theory of “automatic de- velopment” into socialist reconstruction has not yet been relegated to its proper place by our agrarian theoreticians. ; To Be Fontinued, f socialist recon-" Nicaragua “instead of” Uncle Sam. This would have heen, had it been carried through, a veri- table blessing by Latin America for a project of U. S. imperialism. “ But since Sandino was still fighting U. S. imperialism, the pack of boot-licking Latin American governments would not dignify San- dino by the slightest response. He, thereupon, left the battlefield for “higher diplomacy,” pro- ceeding to Vera Crtiz, Mexico, apparently to “convince” the Latin American governments of the necessity for such a econferenée. He repeated the invitation from Merida, Yucatan, shortly after his arrival. Other serious steps of Sandino, were spoken of in a previous article in the Daily Worker. Eight months went by. Sandino still re- mained in Merida, Yucatan, promising to re- turn to the fied of action, but as continually postponing doing so for reasons he would not make clear. In vain the Executive Com- mittee of the All-America Anti-Imperialist League tried to obtain an explanation from the “Commander in Chief” of his sudden “ascetic” retirement. But while he was reticent toward the anti- imperialists, it was known that he held cor- respondence with Portes Gil, the, President of Mexico who had so tractably carried out the orders of Mr. Dwight W. Morrow, Wall Street’s governor general for Mexico. And Sandino Says—Nothing. While Portes Gil and his agents, under or- ders of the same Yankee imperialism which is responsible for the rape of Nicaragua, began and carried on a campaign of white terror against the revolutionary workers and peasants of Mexico who gave Sandino’s army enthusi- asti¢.support, Sandino not only found it pos- sible to remain silent as an “impartial ob- server,” but carried on correspondence, the na- ture of which has not been revealed, with these butchers of the Mexican revolutionary. workers. While refuge revolutionaries from Cuba were being deported Sandino remains silent—and safe. mag Sandino has now come out of Merida, arriv- ing at Mexico City. But the anti-imperialist workers were not on‘hand, as-he apparently expected, to hail him as a hero. He cannot live upon the honorable past. He was met by one man, Doctor Zepeda, a strong supporter of Mr. Morrow’s policy in Mexico, who is still Sandino’s representative, notwithstanding the protest of the All-America Anti-Imperialist League. Sandino has made a slanderous attack on Gustava Machado, a groundless attack as was proven, Machado was Secretary of the Hands Off Nicaragua Committee, and this attack can only be explained as due to pressure upon him from Doctor Zepeda and Co, to have him break away from those who really stand for uncompromising struggle against imperialism and for the complete independence of all col- onies and semi-colonial countries. The Executive Committee of the Anti-Imper- jalist League called on Sandino to put himself at the disposal of the organization for a tour throughout Latin America. But the General Ras remained mute on the subject. At the height of the armed struggle in Nicar- agua, the genuine revolutionary movement of Latin America, and the revolutionary workers of the United States as well, were giving every support possible to Sandino's army. This army as not only swelled by Nicaraguan peasants, Fat also by other Latin American workers from almost every country. Sandino cannot personally claim the great- ness and the glory which belongs to the masses and those who aided the struggle from every corner of the earth. Nor can he proceed upon the notion that he is a second Bolivar, the THE RIGHT DANGER AND ~ THE COOPERATIVES By KARL REEVE HE working class cooperative store moye- ment in this country has its main strength in District Nine, centering in the stores affili- ated to the Cooperative Central Exchange, the wholesale cooperative, which has about seventy retail stores affiliated to it. The Exchange and the retail stores, which are separately in- corporated, have been workingclass coopera- tives following the leadership of the Commu- nist Party of U. S. A. and the Comintern. The stores connected with the Exchange have in all about 20,000 members (shareholders). The Exchange has been the left wing in the Northern States Cooperative League. Dr. War- basse, a millionaire is at the head of this, latter organization. Warbasse is the chief exponent of the idea of the neutrality of the cooperativ in the class struggle, that they should not “mix in politics,” that they must function indepen- dently and themselves reform the evils of this society. @There are all shades of bourgeois “theories” of cooperation in and outside of th league, in addition to the workingclass cooper: tive movement. Capitalist “Neutrality” Theory. There has for years been a right wing ele- ment within the Exchange and the tendency developed in recent months to build up a bu- reaucratic machine in the Exchange which con- sisted of a few highly paid officials, which | more and more lost their working class ideol- ogy, and more and more sought to divorce the movement from the guidance of the Communi Party and tended more and more toward War- basses’s capitalist theory of “neutrality in the class struggle.” The fight against the right danger in the working class cooperatives, at the Plenum of District Nine on October 17, 1929, crystallized into a struggle against the renegade group led by George Halonen, educational director of the Cooperative Central Exchange. It had been obvious for some months that Halonen had been trying to divorce the Exchange from the class struggle. The resistance of Halonen and Eskel Ronn, (the expelled renegade who had welcomed President Coolidge to Superior, and who is manager of the Exchange) to throw- ing the cooperatives into the August First dem- | onstrations was but one indication of the right wing line which Halonen and his clique was pursuing. The failure to build Party fractions, the refusal to work in closer connections with the Trade Union Unity League and the Na- tional Miners Union, the evidences of white chauvinism in some of the courses which was excused by the teachers, the utter failure to discuss anything but business at the coopera- tive meetings except to pay scant an] passing lip service to the class struggle, the disregard for the policies and decisions of the Central Committee by these right wing Party mem- bers, made it clear that Halonen and Ronn were making ready to fight the Party on an opportunist platform and wished to make the Party the tail of the cooperative movement. When thé Central Committee instructed the fraction that Halonen be removed in the middle of October Halonen refused to resign, and mobilized what support he could among the Party members and anti-Party elements in the cooperatives, for an open fight on the Party. The board of directors of the Exchange sup- | ported Halonen 8 to 8. Although Halonen and Ronn and their clique made every effort to hide the real issues involved, they were soon unmasked. As the struggle. against the Halonen oppor- tunist, Social-fascist group progressed the fun- damental issues were forced into the open. © Halonen, based this opposition to the line of the Party in the cooferative on “the backward- ness of the masses,” on a denial of the Com- intern estimate of the third period of sharpened class battles, and in some of his speeches was forced to bring out this anti-Comintern line. In the cooperative conferences held throughout the district in November Halonen and Ronn urged the -ooperative workers to fight the trusts by “standardization” only. Thus Halo- nen’s group denied Lenin’s teaching of the working class cooperative. In actual practice they ignored the role of working class coopera- tives. They ignored the fact that the only w: in which the cooperatives can exist and com- pete with the trusts is to function as organs of class struggle, as part of the working class struggle against capitalism, working in close connection with the other working class organ- izations, and especially the Communist Party, the highest form of organization of the work- ing class. Halonen’s defiance of the decisions of the Communist Party of which he was a member, exposed his renegade, opportunist line and once more demonstrated that once anyone be- ‘gins attacking the Party of the working class, the path to counter-revolution is begun. In the November issue of the “Pyramid Builder” Halonen openly embraced the bourgeois line of the millionaire Warbasse, the famous theory of the neutrality of the cooperatives in the clags struggle. Halonen declared that the Ex- change would not take “dictation” from the Great Leader beyond all question, in whose hands lie the destinies of the people. Feudal military chiefs are not in favor in this year of 1930, with the mass movement of the world proletariat’ and peasantry. In this period of mass revolutionary struggles against world im- perialism and for colonial independence, the Sandinos, one and all, must keep in step with the demands and desires of the oppressed mass- es, or else fall into the capt of the Chiang Kai-sheks. Augusto Sandino is now before the anti-im- perialist tribunal. There is no compromising with his wavering and ambiguous attitude. He has gone far enough to justify questioning. What were the contents of his correspondence with Portes Gil and his agents, for one thing? The Latin American masses know that with- holding, if not the hold, of such correspondence, constitutes a betrayal. It is immaterial whether Sandino received remuneration for his conduct or not, or whether » sugh remuneration was great or small. That. is of only secondary importance. But of chief importance has been his underhand actions and secretiveness during his stay at Merida. San- dino must know that in this perio! of intease against imperialism, he must answer to the masses or be shoved aside for more sound ma- terial, more uncompromising leaders, borne up from the masses in struggle, who, as part of the masses and not superior to them, will lead them to fing) victory. | not unierstand the Party line.” y of the working class. He pleaded fos cooperatives, and attacked the . revolutionary newspaper ‘'Tyo- ™ mies.” Already Halonen and his supporters e taken steps to remove the hammer and kle from the co-operative products, and substitute as the Exchange trade matk the two pine trees, the label of the bourgeoise North- ern States Co-operative League. Already Halo- nen has taken steps to try to turn the Ex- | change into a purely business institution. Organizationally, Halonen also quickly came out in the open. He openly allied himself with the renegade Sulkanen. He sent letters to the co-oper: ore managers endorsing Vapaus, t Canadian paper, as his of- ficial organ in attacking the Tyomies. He began printing a counter-revolutionary weekly paper of his own, the “Co-operative News.” His chief supporter became the social demo- cratic buffoon Allanne, who had just been ex- pelled from the Minneapolis Workers Club for his opposition to the working class line of the club. Urn, of Chisholm, the Trotskyist, became { Halonen’s spokesman on the Iron Range. The ’ Tro st organ, the “Militant,” printed an | article by Vincent Dunne, attacking the party and defending Halonen. This article was re- printed in the Jewish Forward, the social de- mocratic bosses’ sheet, with favorable com- ment. Industrialistii, the Finnish, reformist I.W.W. paper, began printing interviews with Halone 1 these were quoted with approval in the Finnish white guardist paper in Duluth. Typical examples of the conciliators were Matti Tenhunen and Oscar Corgan. They for- mally voted for the decisions of the party, but they spoke against them. They attacked the pa decisions and “tactics” bitterly, but, had nothing to say against Halonen’s oppor- tunist line. Worst of all they allowed their names to be used as supporters of anti-working class statements, signed by the board of direc- of the Exchange, of which they were mem- bers, without protesting. Others took even more open anti-party attitudes. Kantola, a member of the board of directors of the Tyo- 7 although voting for the Tyomies state- merits, in his speeches declared that the Jani- tor of Tyomies had done his duty in clubbing the district organizer of the Party with an axe handle. Rossi, another member of the board, declared that those Party representatives who had burned the November Pyramid Builders containing a counter revolutionary attack on the working class, suffered from “left sick- ness” and should be thrown out of the window. Koski, another board member, declared that we should judge impartially between Halonen’s gangsters who raided Tyomies, and the Party representatives, including members of the C.C. commission, who protected the building from this attack, and that both were wrong. The struggle against Halonen’s anti-working class line was quickly taken to the non-party members in the mass working class organiza- tions. The workers and poor farmers quickly gave the lie to Halonen’s theory of the “back- wardness of the masses,” “that the masses will The masses overwhelmingly rejected Halonen’s social-fas- cism, and. gave wholehearted support to the Party line. This struggle opened when the Party organization in the District was weaker than it had ever been. The dues paying mem- | bership had fallen from about 700 dues paying members some months ago to 341 in August and to 144 in September, and 110 in October. A majority of the units had ceased to meet regularly, But in spite of this organizational weakness, the Party membership repudiated the line of the renegade Halonen. In the heat of the struggle against the right wing opportunists, sections were established and the units again began to function, Frac- tion meetings were held for the first time in many months, and in some cases years. Eighty five organizations, workers clubs, Cooperatives, ete., passed resolutions against Halonen and for the Party line. The lumber workers con- ference in Mass, Mich., endorsed the Party line, 78 to The 12 local unions of the National Miners Union, with several hundred members (metal miners) endorsed the party line. Twen- ty cooperative stores, in spite of Halonen’s machine, have already voted against the rene- gade Halonen’s policy. Halonen’s idea of the backwardness of the masses was repudiated. | ‘He failed in his attempt to gain control of Tyomies. The women’s sections repudiated Halonen’s anti-Party ideas, Keep on Fighting Opportunism. The struggle now centers around the coming meeting of the Cooperative Central Exchange Shareholders in the spring. Elections have al- ready begun. The left wing must remain on the offensive and center the fight in the co- operatives, those already supporting must tually in practical work put the correct li into effect. The fight to keep the cooperatives for the line of the revolutionary workingelass must be ntensified. The Party won a victory in the first clash in spite of the organization weaknesses of the Party. Halonen had at his disposal large sums of money. He had the reformist press at his disposal in addition to his own weekly paper. He sent organizers, paid fat salaries, to every section of the district, and these organizers went from house to house speaking against the Party. . The Party now faces tremendous tasks. The apparatus has only begun to function. In the Superior-Duluth section over 40 Party ang League members, all bureaucratic intellectuals except a few who have been corrupted by Hal- lonen, will be out of the Party. The last plenum of the district, held on Dec. 21, showed that the fight against the , Right wing has strengthenel the Party considerable. The ideological line has been clarified, the Party is united on a Leninist program, the Hallonen opportunists have been elimingted. | The discussion showed that the Party mem- bers realize that the mass work of the Party, organizing the unorganized, political demon- strations, organizing the unemployed, fighting the war danger, defending the Soviet Union and other mass work has begun, The Party has its eyes. in the right direction. .Now the task is to better the compositon of the Party (it is still almost entirely Finnish in member- ship with not a big enough proportion of work- | ers), to throw the Party into the xteuget struggle of the whole Latin American masses | , ~ aan the workers in the district. The Party mem- bership is extremely small, This makes the recruiting campaign a vital one in the district. The fight on the right wing has reached the stage of throwing the Party into mass work, of building the Party, only a skeleton of which now exists, by adding new workers to its ranks, 1