The Daily Worker Newspaper, June 20, 1930, Page 3

~-—_.»_[LY WORKER, NEW YORK, FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1 shh Page Three _ PRE-CONVENT '(E AGRARIAN QUESTION| By ALEX NORAL. our Party is about to orientate itself ds the agrarian question, an orienta- g overdue, and now an absolute neces- ‘gh can no longer be sidetracked with | opportunist phrases, as has been the | the past. £ the first questions confronting us in | 1 work is the organization of the agri- | proletariat. More energy must be » mobilizing these proletarian masses mber about four and one-half million, » must play a decisive role in the or- : of the poor farmers, tenants and coppers in their struggle against cap- | sure a revolutionary farmers organiza- ; inst becoming enmeshed in reformism, essary that the agricultural proletariat sir fractions in the farmers organiza- ne of the greatest mistakes the Party e in the past was to set up an agrarian in the wheat belt of North Dakota, ating what little effort was made, on in farmers, and secondly to attempt iize the farmers without at the same ranizing unions or leagues of the agri- proletariat with fractions in the organizations, leading them in revo- y struggle, and winning them over to y as allies for the final struggle. Of | ze should not underestimate or neglect | r grain farmers, who are becoming | poverished every day, but we must lay s.on the poor tenants, share-croppers, c owning Negro and white farmers in | th. Not stopping here we must reach nds of poor farmers in every State ‘ica. is evidence that the poor farmers are g to realize the betrayal, and are tired «misled by the Farm Bloc politicians, 1 politicians, the reformist farm or- ons, the Grange and the Farmers vhose leadership has sold them to Am- mperialism for further slavery and | Draft Not Thought Of. as to the “draft program” on agricul- blished in the “Communist,” we are 9 have doubts as to whether the com- the districts and Party units have ithe draft, At least the Daily Worker | n expression of such being the case, * expresses the attitude of the com- . the agrarian question in general. | 2 agenda of the convention will be the question. But should we discuss the rarian program? I think not. First- the draft fails to give a sectional an- hich is quite necessary in order to lay s for sectional programs. Then the badly formulated and represents more te with a mass of statistical data and as from Lenin. Third—the draft has n discussed by the comrades in the nits, which is quite necessary that ih< s may realize the importance and ne- of our tasks in agrarian work. e whole the draft furnishes the Party me valuable material, and should be as such for use in the drawing 0) ver draft. Nevertheless we must point 2» technical shortcomings as formulated raft. first paragraph section 1, it states: illion farmers and their families are | vade pariahs and vagrants under the many farmers.’” es, capitalism would shape for itself a homogeneous agri- | but there are too many contradictions a scheme under capitalism. They may | ro or three million farmers from the t what will they do with the land, will le with capital already invested in it, he land be planted with seedling trees up into forests as suggested by the y of Agriculture? We know that | rent will be the determining factor vhat will become of the land, and | forests under capitalism is not a | le scheme. Therefore we know that stims will be found to take the place evicted. What Hyde and Hoover ad- ind what finance capital, bankers, loan nd landlords, the holders of this land, ‘ictions, actually do, is two different The draft fails to make this clear. all, the holders of land are not so just now to take the land from the rmers. We see already the bankers to make loans to the farmer unless sand raises more products for his own ‘tion and less for the markets. In other hey tell the farmer to raise just enough aducts for the markets, to insure the sand bankers and speculators a steady profit, and preserving them for further tion. her Wages Would Absorb Surplus. vagraph two, the draft states: “If, how- .e city proletariat by struggle, can the employing class to pay higher his would help to absorb the surplus.” emulation is absolutely incorrect. Do me that if the workers were able to more food that production would not proportionately? We know that more be produced on the land than could —_———$$ A * tcomings in Shop Work By CHAS. MORRISON. G just functioned as section industrial izer in section 4, Chicago, it is per- | s& to cite our achievements and short- We had contact in a.number of 'y with a weak functioning shop com- which recently got out a shop bulletin, as eagerly received by the workers in ory. More such bulletins should be But our last two attempts failed. The & due to the fact that our section or- and one of the principal functionaries, Bectell, failed to keep an engagement, ey were supposed to bring shop hews arrange the bulletin. Since this shop xe has been materially weakened, be- wo factory workers have been dis- it is highly important that specia] e directed on this factory. cently organized a shop nucleus in one portant factory. We had three shop and two members attached to the ye member was expelled because he « pay dues, and refused to carry out “ne on the T.U.U.L. work. I. with be consumed by the workers, even if they were able to buy all the food they wanted. On the other hand, would not the speculators in food increase their profits on the strength of higher wages to the workers? Point (g) paragraph two, fails to point out the impossibility of restoring solvency to agri- culture (liquidating the agrarian crisis) even if they “succeed” in pauperizing two or three million farmers, The facts are that there is absolutely no hope for the bourgeoisie to solve the agrarian crisis. In section 4, paragraph 5, page 38, the draft speaks of “illusory and passing advantage small farmers will gain from concessions the bourgeoisie will make to unite all bourgeois elements against the revolutionary advance of the proletariat.” But will the bourgeoisie make concessions to the really poor farmers, share- croppers or poor tenants, even of a passing advantage to them? True, the big rich farmers, farm corporations and certain of the middle farmers will more than likely have some con- cessions made to them in order to unite them against, not only the proletariat, but also against the poor farmers. The term small farmers is too confusing in these days when even many small farmers are farming very intensively on small farms. In fact different- iation of the farmers is not made clear in the draft. The draft should have at least (as it mentions history of farm organizations) men- tioned the Western Progressive Farmers or- ganization of which William Bouck was the father. This organization had some signific- ance. It was born in the State of Washington and spread its influence through Montana, Minnesota and Wisconsin and was the first organization to my knowledge that advocated economic action. The government through the Farm Board is now trying to put into practice the very slogan advocated by the W.P.F,, i.e., that farmers should quit producing for the markets and only produce enough for them- selves. But the origin of the W.P.F. is im- portant for us, as it was born in rebellion against the leadership and patriotism of the National Grange, It was a split of the radical elements away from the Grange, and with a real revolutionary fighting leadership, this or- ganization might have been today the van- guard in leading the poor farmers in struggle against American imperialism. But with Boucks passivity, and the Party’s opportunism on the agrarian question, the W.P.F. was al- lowed to die an organization, without a strug- gle to its credit. Suggest Scientific Revolutionary Program. We cannot go on without a scientific revolu- tionary agrarian program. Such a program should be ready before the next.party plenum. In the meantime we can rally the poor farmers to the League and Party on the slogans men- tioned below. The convention should discuss the question of agrarian organization by the party and U.F.L. and the immediate organizational steps , te be taken to build and strengthen the U.F.L., and the establishing of an agrarian department | in the party in every district. Also the question of a weekly farm paper, and some space in the | Daily Worker devoted to agriculture. If this is done it will move us a step forward in agrar- ian work. The following general partial demands should | also be discussed at the convention in order to | acquaint the comrades with the revolutionary | importance of these demands! 1. The abolition of all forms of taxation on poor farmers. (Poor owners, tenants and share-croppers). 2. The liquidation of all indebtedness of all categories of poor farmers. 3. Absolutely no evictions from the land for failure to meet financial obligations or otherwise. 4. The abolition of sales of poor farmers’ property (chattle, land or personal) by sher- iffs sales, auctions or any other means of confiscation. 5. A decided reduction of rents for middle and poor farm tenants, and the abolition of the share-crop system. 6. The abolition of the Federal Farm Board, which is an instrument in the hands of the big farm corporations, rich farmers and finance capital, whose policy means the ruination of the poor farmers, one and all. The discontinuing of financing by the gov- ernment of farm corporations, rich farmers, their interprises and organizations, and free subsidies to all categorice of poor farmers. As well as the above demands the follow- ing demands may be considered by the con- vention as to their revolution content. a. Free transportation of all poor farm- ers children to ¢nd from school (regardless of nationality or color) and transportation to be heated in cold weather. b. Free installation of electric energy to all farms of poor farmes. In offering the last demand we have in mind the fact that in order for a poor farm- er to get electricity on his place he is forced to pay so much a pole from the main line to his farm, he must guarantee to purchase | from the power trust an clectric range, and guarantee to use so much electric energy in Pepe given time, and several other form- alities, LS one of the unit members who worked in the factory, personally visited factory workers, and tried to organize a shop committee, which utterly failed, because of no assistance from the rest of the section committee, and no con- nection from the District. Our weak section leadership has been generally reflected throughout the section. After our section con- vention, the section leadership failed to get in touch with the units for some time, and the section resolution has not as yet been pre- sented to the units, only reported as incom- plete. In addition the section and District has ignored reports about comrades who have openly opposed to the Daily Worker. To develop our Party as it should be in the basic industries, we must do the following: 1) Develop functionaries from the basic in- dustries, 2) At all times sell the Daily Worker, at factory gates and issue factory bulletins. 3) Hold regular open air meetings, in front of factories, 4) Organize real functioning shop commit- tees, 6. Regular section unemployed meetings, should be conducted ION DISCUSSION Vie qty “Those Tracks Lead to the Factories!” By BARD Agitprop Work in Our Party By A. MARKOFF. | 'E agitprop work in our Party may be | divided into two main groups: 1. Mass agitation and propaganda, which includes propaganda in the shops, mills, fac- tories, mines, etc., by means of leaflets, fac- tory papers, factory gate meetings, open air street meetings, mass meetings in_ halls, pamphlets, and Party press, and individual agitation and propaganda carried on by every Party member in the factories and mass or- ganizations. 2. Education of our own members in the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. This is accomplished in three ways: (a) Through the Party schools by organ- izing classes, full time training courses, study circles, special lectures, forums, etc. (b) Through discussions of various Party campaigns, issues, manifestos, theses, etc., at the meetings of the units, shop nuclei, sec- tions, etc. (c) The most important method is active | participation in the political campaigns of the Party. : It is with the second division of our agit- prop work that I deal with mainly in this article. Raising the Political Level of Our Membership. Due to the growing crisis of capitalism in the United States, with its tremendous un- ; employment, the struggles of the masses of workers against exploitation, capitalist ra- tionalization, etc., are becoming sharper and assume greater and greater dimensions. The open support of the imperialist forces by the fascist A. F. of L. bureaucracy, the class col- laboration policy of the social fascist socialist party *and Muste group, make the workers in the United States realize that the Commu- nist Party is the only leader of the workers in their struggles. It is up to our Party then to supply this leadership, to organize the unemployed workers in their fight for work | or wages, etc. This requires an army of ca- pable functionaries to lead the workers in | their struggles. This problem, the problem of creating new cadres of functionaries, of developing new leading forces, is the most important problem before the Party at the present time, and nfust receive immediate consideration. The lack of members in the, Party who are trained in the theory of Leninism, is in my opinion one of | the chief contributing causes to the “dispro- portion between the Party influence and weak- ness in organization” (thesis and resolutions for 7th Convention of the C.P.U.S.A.). This | gap must be bridged over, and as quickly as | possible, The training of our members, new and old, is the first step. : ; The most effective and direct training is actual participation in the struggles of the workers (strikes, demonstrations, work in the labor unions, etc.), but also a sound theoreti- cal training is essential for the development of leading cadres, It is especially in the present period, the period of world proletarian revolution, that we must understand Marxism, and know how to apply the Marxian method to our tasks. In other words we must know and understand Leninism, for Leninism is the continuation | and further development of Marxism under | the conditions imposed by the epoch of im- | perialism, and the development of socialist | revolutions. The Central Committee of our Party has already outlined a number of steps to be taken in connection with the training of our members. The resolution on “Keeping New Members” should be put into immediate prac- tiee by all units, sections and districts. This resolution should help te break down the non- Leninist attitude which manifested itself from time to time in some units in New York, where theoretical training was looked upon as in- tellectualism, where comrades active in this work were referred to as intellectuals, who are not doing real Party work. This is duc perhaps to the fact that the Party as a whole failed to emphasize the importance of Marxist ; Tertmist education, and the role of the Work- | ers School and its branches in this activity. ihe resolution on Keeping New Members is therefore a healthy sign. But even at this time, the Party has failed to give sufficient recognition to the Workers School. Not one reference to the school is made in the Thesis and Resolutions. This, in my opinion, is a shortcoming, an underestima- tion of the role that the Workers School plays in our Agitprop work. Hundreds of Party members and workers | outside of the Party, who have received in- | struction in the Workers School, its importance, but there are still a number appreciate | of members in the Party who look upon the school as an outside institution, as a sort of an appendix to the Party. The Party must bring sharply to the atten- | tion of the membership that the Workers School, the central school of the Party, and its branches, are an integral part of the appar- atus of the Party, and an indispensable in- strument in our agitprop work. Certain steps have already been takeyp by the GC, C. in this direction, through the recent decisions of the National Agitprop Committee to strengthen the Workers School and put it on a functioning basis as a national school, to build a school in the South, to establish full time district training schools this summer, to run week end courses in all districts, to or- ganize another national full time training | school in the Fall, to develop correspondence courses, to carry on educational work in the labor unions jointly with the T. U. U. L. Discussions in the Units. This second phase in the training of our members is of tremendous value, but up to the present time it has not been carried out correctly, with the result that it has con- tributed but very little to the development of our comrades. The following shortcomings are to be noted: 1. Mechanical separation of the discussions in the units from the immediate tasks in our work. The tendency has been to discuss our campaigns, manifestos, theses, etc, separate and apart from the immediate practical tasks. This is a non-Leninist approach to the prob- lem, it makes the discussion too general and abstract, and as was noticed during the re- cent discussions of the Thesis, the Party mem- bers were unable to connect the Thesis with the practical concrete tasks. In some units, there was even resistance to the linking up of the Thesis with the immediate problems. “The Thesis should be discussed theoretical- ly,” remarked a comrade in one unit. Here again we see how important it is for our mem- bers to be trained in Leninism, for Leninism does not permit separating of theory from practice. 2. Little or no coordination between the Agitprop Department and other departments of the Party, such as Organization and In- dustrial Departments. This particularly ap- plies to units, sections, and some districts. Only through close coordination of the work of the various departments can we achieve success in our Party activities. 3. Weakness of the Agitprop Apparatus. In several districts of the Party, there is | no organized agitprop department. In many units and sections, comrades who occupy the | position of agitprop director, are not fit for | the work, while in others there are tendencies of specialization. once, strengthened locally and nationally. The Na- tional Agitprop Department must be aug- mented with a number of comrades exper- ienced in agitprop work, who would serve as agitprop instructors, to. be sent by the C. E. C. to various districts to aid the district in building our agitprop apparatus.‘ These com- rades should make periodic visits to the dis- tricts to observe the agitprop work and re- port to the National Agitprop Department. The National Agitprop Department should organize national conferences of all agitprop directors, preferably at the time of a C.E.C. Plenum or Convention. This will coordinate the agitprop work of the individual districts. In the units and some sections, two wrong | tendencies have been noticed from time to time. Prior to the Party’s policy of prole- tarianizing ‘the leading committees, the ten- dency was to relegate agitprop work to the professional or intellectual stratum units. fice, is difficult to understand. the active process of proletarianization was introduced, the tendency to go to the other extreme, that is to eliminate comrades who happen to be professionals from active and responsible wépk, even though the comrade | in question was a long standing member in | the Party, politically developed, and capable | of rendering the Party good service. Both of these tendencies are absolutely wrong, and must be corrected. A more detailed treatment of this subject is impossible for lack of space in the press. My aim is to draw the attention of all activ comrades to this important phase ‘of our ac- | tivity. By HARRISON GEORGE N another article the writer has, in replying to Comrade Erik Bert’s criticism on the Draft gricultural Program, conceded some of its weaknesses, such as the lack of sectional de- mands. Its length, a subject of purely techni- eal objection, was made necessary by the need for giving in a popular way and for the first general anlysis, as the Agrarian Department was instructed to do by the Central Committee and the October 1929 Plenum. Comrade Bert seemed to complain at the lack of statistics. But Comrade Noral contends | there are too much “statistical data and quota- tions from Lenin.” Granting Comrade Noral’s good intentions, we must say that if he had given more attention to Lenin’s quotations and had seriously considered the Draft, his article would not have suffered from such a number ot opportunist views, doubtlessly not his purpose This must be corrected at | The agitprop committees must be | of the | When an agitprop director had to be chosen, a dentist, physician, or lawyer, or any | college bred individual was nominated for of- | Why a diploma to practice dentistry or | law should qualify one for agitprop director | Subsequently when | | in writing it, but none the less put forward to supplant the Draft, which he dismisses with a | wave of the hand as not even worthy of dis- cussion. We are forced to ask Comrade Noral ae this Olympic scorn? | Firstly, because, says Comrade Noral, it | gives no sectional analysis. Such statement is | inexact, moreover, beside the question. | Draft is a general analysis, as it is primarily supposed to be, though it deals extensively with such sections as the South and the grain belt. But Comrade Noral is against a general analysis being discussed! Secondly, he says it is “badly formulated,” which he explains by adding that it contains “statistical data and quotations from Lenin,” an evil he avoids completely in his own article, and all of which, in the absence of political errors, is anew reason why any program should | not be discussed. Somewhat Hasty | _ Thirdly, he claims, writing from Moscow in May, that the Draft “has not been discussed in the party units” in America. Alas, many things are, unfortunately not adequately dis- cussed in the units. But this is a remarkable reason why they should not discuss anything. “They have not discussed it; therefore they shall not discuss it,” is Comrade Noral’s un- usual idea. The Daily Worker of May 27, pub- | lished a telegram from the Party Organizer of District 9, saying that—“200 farmers’ dele- gates in Northern Minnesota have endorsed the Agrarian Program.” In the Central Com- mittee we have received no report on whether the Draft has or has not been discussed. Hence Comrade Noral’s statement from Moscow in- dicates that he possesses marvellous telepathic | powers, or has fallen into a supercilious atti- tude which does him no credit. We regret being compelled to take the latter alternative, since Comrade Noral, after conced- ing that the Draft “should be accepted in the drawing up of another draft’”—which is not a wholly objectionable idea—finally dismisses even the programmatic conclusions of the pre- | | | | | the meantime we can rally the poor farmers on the slogans mentioned below.” But in criticizing what he terms “some tech- | nical shortcomings” of the Draft, Comrade | Noral makes it more than doubtful that the policy 1+ would substitute for that of the | present Draft is acceptable to our Party. He says that—“the agricultural proletariat must have fractions in the farmers’ organiza- tion of two hostile classes, inescapably class | collaborationist, no matter how presented as formism.” It is a rankly Mensheyik idea. Our Party cannot permit such a policy, Comrade Noral says that—“We see’—that finance capital is trying to reverse the historic development from self-sufficing farm produc- tion to commodity production, production for the market—“refusing to make loans to the farmer unless he plants more products for his own consumption and less for the market.” Nonsense! We see nothing of the sort. Why Not Accept Lenin? If Comrade Noral had read the “quotations By JACK ROSS, ALTHOUGH on a national and international scale and in some districts on a district scale, coordination in our work has improved to a great extent between the Young Communist League and the Party, in the sections and units of our Party there still remains a gross underestimation of the importance of Com- munist work amongst the working youth, and there is therefore little or no cooperation or political guidance given to the Y.C.L. At this time when our Party is in the midst of a campaign to build the Trade Union Unity League, and we have already entered the state elections, it is not enough to say “we must or- ganize the Negro, youth and working woman.” We must study the conditions and problems of the young workers in order to lay down a de- finite plan of leading the working youth strug- gle against treir miserable conditions. Our comrades must not look at the work of organizing the young workers into the Y.C.L. | and revolutionary unions as another task sep- arate and apart from our every day activities, | but as an important part of our every day task | and campaign and in turn must become the co- | ordinator and instigator of our work. | Hundreds of thousands of young workers | | | be found. Tens of thousands of working class youth coming out of school find no place in industry. At the same time the working youth are more and more taking the place of the adult workers (textile, light industries) and in many instances whole youth industries have sprung up (radio, etc.). These new recruits into industry becoming the main or sole sup- porter of the family, feel the full brunt of the present economic crisis, even more so than the adult worker. The young workers are exploited under a much fiercer speed-up and longer hours for less wages. Not being eligible to the A. F, of L, craft unions and industrial unions not existing in most of these youth industries, the young worker is unprotected against the present brutal hire and fire sys- tem of the bosses. These are the conditions that make the young workers revolt and step more definitely into the class struggle which we nust be the leaders of by coordinating i: a i time in our Party, a theoretical base and a | The | FOR A LENINIST LINE IN AGRICULTURE from Lenin” in the Draft Program, he would have found (Page 117, Feb. Communist) Len in’s statement as follows: “The small farmer under capitalism, whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware of it or not—becomes a commodity producer.” But Comrade Noral, we regret, appears too lofty to read Lenin, even criticizing Lenin’s term “small farmer.” But the serious thing about this view, which Comrade Nora] reveals by his evident anxiety about this mythical process of going back to feudalism—“through the Farm Board trying to put into practice the very slogan advocated by the W.P.F., i.e, that farmers should quit producing for the market and only produce enouga for themselves”—is that it is a wholly reactionary, anti-class struggle idea. In mildest form t is put forth by social-democra- tic demagogues as the possibility of building up the middle class, of restoring the petty bourgeo- isie, of Bernstein’s revision of Marx, of estab- lishing on an economically sound basis the idyllic “small rural proprietor,” We regret Comrade Noral's confusion, but if he proceeds to his next step on this path, an alliance between the revolutionary proletariat and farmers who, heaven forfend, are imbued with the idea of Comrade Noral on the possi- bility of such devolution, he enters the door of yielding everything in the struggle against big capital to the petty bourgeois agrarian; because if the farmer sees this as his goal, he will fight for this and not for socialism, and if we have an alliance with him we must go along. “Left” and Right Meet But when Comrade Noral comes to the state- . ment in the Draft that—“If the city proletariat | by struggle can compel the employing class’to ! pay higher wages, this would help to absorb the surplus,” he carefully separates this from all that went before and after, thus mutilating | the meaning of the context, and breaks into the same “leftist” opportunist protest as Com- rade Bert (Daily Worker, May 24). Only Comrade Noral, who wants to give us a “scientific revolutionary” program in place of the Draft, is fearful of attempting, as Comrade Bert logically and consistently tried to do, to establish a theoretical base for his “leftism,” and falls back on his own uncertainty by ask- ing questions, “Do we assume,” he asks from his own doubts, “that production would not increase propors tionately?” No, Comrade Noral, we do not “assume” anything of the sort. We know, as Communists should, that production would’ in- crease more than the proportion absorbed by the increased consumption. But what of it? Again he asks: “Would not the speculators in food increase their profits on the strength | of higher wages to the workers?” Very likely, Comrade Noral, since speculators, rascals that they are, have been known to do such things if | they get a monopoly, But why advance such “to insure a farmers’ organization against re- | are now desperately looking for jobs not to | sent Draft and modestly proposes his own: “In * a childish argument against struggle of the workers for higher wages? At least, why ad- vance it in the name of a “scientific revolu- tionary” objection to asking the poor farmers to help the proletariat in its wage struggles? Somewhat ponderously Comrade Noral ob- jects to “Point (g) para. two” because it fails, he claims, “to point out the impossibility of restoring solvency to agriculture” even if the farm masses are pauperized. If Comrade Noral had read the Draft Program carefully at all, he would have found (Page 365, April Com- munist) a whole page where the impossibility of “organized capitalism” in farming is clearly explained. Such proposals as Comrade Noral suggests in his article, when they do not merely repeat those already found in the programmatic con- clusions of the Draft, are mostly grave oppor- tunistic errors, some openly so, some “leftist.” Hence we feel that he has acted hastily in wav- ing aside the Draft Program. And we trust that he will benefit from his present surround ings to improve his Leninist knowledge, with which we trust he will be of great aid in carry- ing on our Party’s long neglected work among the farmers. The Y. C. L. and the Party our work with the Y.C.L. The “Young Worker” is the mouthpiece o the League and its mass contact wtih the young workers in the factories, shops, and un- employed young workers and the working class youth in the schools. The “Young Worker” has taken upon itself to organize ten thousan young worker into vouth sections of the T.U , U.L, What can be a better mass organize, than the official press of the Y.C.L.? Our League have already taken more ser!- ously the building of the “Young Worker,” th: fact that it is now issued every week, A the same time the Y.C.L. is pushing ahead tc- wards closer cooperation with the Party by or- ganizing functioning committees to sell Dail. Workers in front of the factory gates ever morning. Many subscribers have also’ ‘bee! gotten by the Y.C.L. or Red Sundays. I suggest that at once every section an} unit Daily Worker representative, meets wit. the respective “Young Worker” agent’ ar work out a plan whereby the “Young Worker can be popularized and sold together with tl» Daily Worker in your section and unit te> ritory. Especially should Party representativ: to the League executives see that this is ca.- ried in action. 1) The Party should see that the ¥.0). send speakers and comrades to sell the “Youn™ Worker” at all open air mass and factory ga‘> meetings. 2) Combination sub blanks for the Dai’ Worker and “Young Worker” should appear «) shop papers and leaflets issued by the Pariy or League. 8) The Party sections should get t! League to participate in all Red Sundays, t! “Young Worker” being sold and subscribe: gotten for it by the Party and League cor:- rades, also at dances, picnics and excursions. 4) Party Representatives to Y.C.L, E>- ecutive Committee should make this an ir portant part of their report at the next Leag..> executive meeting. Forward to a healthy coordination in o-. work between the party and Y.C.L.! Build a mass circulation for the “You: Worker” together with the Daily Worker! its. .