The Daily Worker Newspaper, October 8, 1930, Page 4

tae Mtge Published by the Comprodaily Publishing Co., Inc., daily —=" Daily; Worker i SUBSCRIPTION RATES? Sicney 0 ; Page Four . (easly lacy sitet Ate ster Sr ne By mail everywhere: One year, $6; six months, $3; two months, $1; excepting Boroughs So Sai sd i A aR ag ace acer Sern ea ar a! F A of Manhattan and Bronx, New York City. Foreign: One year, $8; six months, $4.50 Address and mail all checks to the Daily Worker, 60 East 13th Street, New York, N. ¥. Central Onge mcEdYpunist Party US. = a THE PRESENT ELECTION ‘CAMPAIGN JGEN SCHMIE n Fed illiam the revo- es in order program of ust understand that never put in a They are the fas- agents for the regpec- tries and for the Wall And as such, up the burning cf the employed and unemployed purpose will be to mold k and file members of the ‘ough them, as many other e for the election program pariy. and social fascist agents are ted in organizing the workers to nst wage euts, but on the contrary. e, in the city of New York, we find sleaders of labor who d the initiative in issu- The same holds true in the ry. din all other struggles the ders of the respective A. F. of L. unions nly lining up with the bosses, with the nd state government against the increased itancy of the workers. Scores of injunc- being issued throughout the entire our Trade Union Unity League nizaticns. Mess arrests on the errorization and pcliee brutality, g are on the order of the e answer of the A. F. of L. is to vote for the capitalist parties, does ret matter very much whether it epublieun, democratic or socialist party. z the New York convention of the A. F. of L., Green called upon convention to endorse the Democratic Party. In Michigan and other states it was the very same Green who celled upon the state eonvention to en- ‘bl: Party, Mr. Biilman of the co: v union in the needle trades is mo- bilizing for the Socialist Party. And why should it make any difference. These parties above mentioned are those of the bosses. Hoover Comes Now, as to what methods are used in order to win their program. According to the infor- mation so far, it is clear President Hoover, the agent of the Wall Street government will greet the convention. of course is neces- in order to put i finishing touches to wage increase agree- n. between the govern- n of the ero- lers of the work- sident of i t of all the counie in this country, order to further for war tion ignores the increased 000 workers who are un- ram openly fights t of the masses The Tasks of the T.U.U.L. It must be the League and its al leagues to bring home to the workers gel ly the treacherous policy of the A. F. of L. officials in the election campaign. The Trade Union Unity League supports the e of the work class and en- al party of the v task of the Trade Union Unity ne only the Communist Par' All mass meet and membership meet- ings, as well as our general aciivity from now until November Fourth, must be utilized in | order to activize our entire membership for the election program and the candidates of the Communist Party. It must be the task of our tionary unions to bring home to the vs that it is the Communist Party which ends in the forefront not only during the election campaign period, but all year around, that fights for the fundamental and elementary interests and demands of the masses of work- A ERS. In our struggle for immediate emergency re- lief, it was the Communist Party that was the only political Party that challenged the pro- gram of the bosses and the officials of the A. F. of L. and rallied oyer 1,250,000 workers on March Sizth in the struggle against unem- ployment. Again, the Communist Party is in the fore- front at all times giving the lead and organi- zation to the revolutionary working class fight against injunctions, lynching, terror. A'vote for the Communist Party is a pro- test against the treacherous sell-out policy of the leaders of the A. F. of L. A vote for the Communist Party on November 4th is a fight- ing demand for the program of the unemploy- ed councils. A vote on November 4th for the Communist Party is a registration of the in- creased militancy among the masses of work- ers, Down with the betrayal of the misleaders of labor. Down with the election program and their general collaboration policy of the bosses and their political parties. Forward to greater economic battles under the leadership of the Trade Union Unity Leegue. Fight and crush their program of lynching and terrorization, Demand immediate unemployment insurance. Organize and strike against wage cuts. Vote Communist on November Fourth. Earnest Lundeen Exposed As Social-Fascist RNEST LUNDEEN who claims to be a “pro- pressive” Farmer Laborite picked the city of Hibbing on the Iron Range to declare his layalty to American imperialism. It was in Hibbing where on August First over one thou- sand workers under the leadership of the Com- munist Party demonstrated against imperialist war and for the defense of the Soviet Union. So on September 14 came Ernest Lundeen, Farmer Labor Party candidate for the United States Senate, to try to counteract some of the “fight imperialist war” spirit of the workers. Ponder This Here is a gem from his speech: “I have been painted by the opposition as a pacifist and it has been heralded that I opposed the United States entry into the World War. To the latter I will say that it is the truth but I certainly voted to prosecute the war to the limit once we were in it, but that has never been given to my credit. As to being a pacifist that is untrue, as I served in the Spanish American war and have eleven years of army service to my credit.” For years Ernie posed as a radical and a pacifist and therefore did not want to be mis- understood by the steel trust, especially now when he’ is. the banner bearer of the Farmer Labor Party. So he came to Hibbing, the center of the steel trust, to state his program of servility to capitalism and ask forgiveness for his past blabbering about pacifism. No Pacifist Mr. Lundeen is not a pacifist. He is an im- perialist war monger. He is as much pacifist as MacDonald, the Labor Party Premier of British imperialism. As long as the war dan- ger seemed to be far off, Lundeen could afford every once in a while to utter some phrases about the horror of war. But now, when the prospects of another imperialist war is an im- mediate danger it is different. A rumor spread that Mr. Dundeen is against building new battleships, so he hastens to defend himself that he was misunderstood. He was opposed to the building of huge warships that could be ren- dered useless by small airplanes. “We need greater air protection,” he declares in his cam- paign speech at Hibbing, “and I was one of the first to advocate and vote for air service that would assure the United States adequate pro- tection.” Unashamed he joins the ranks of the bosses’ war propagandists. Nice Words “Adequate protection,”—what a nice phrase. Many of the war mongers agitate only against invasion. But not so Ernie Lundeen. He knows that capitalism has a far stronger enemy than invasion from the outside. What he means by the words “adequate protection” he explains himself. With great gusto he pledges: “I will fight against invasion, and ANY FOE that threatens the life of the greatest nation on the face of the earth, as would every other citizen of the United States.” The position of Lundeen, hidden beneath a pile of nice words, is becoming plain. He boasts that he served in the American imperialist war of 1898. He tells the steel trust that he could be depended upon to fight against “any foe” of capitalism and that he has the military qual- ifications for it. Airplanes might come in handier to protect the iron ore properties from the half starved miners. What Does It Mean? The workers and farmers of Minnesota must understand fully this pledge of the social fas- cist Ernest Lundeen. His pledge, which means the pledge of the Farmer Labor Party, to fight against “any foe” of capitalism means to fight against any attempts of the iron miners’ strug- gle for unemployed insurance and against the speed up. It means to extend the process of expropriation of the poor farmers. He pledges to continue and defend the exploitation of the workers and farmers who are suffering from unemployment, starvation and Hoover “relief” and who may “threaten the life of the greatest nation on the face of the earth.” All Lundeen *needs now is to don his old uniform and buckle on his sword and he is ready. On Recognition Anc how about the recognition of the Soviet Union? Mr. Lundeen made quite a fuss over this two years ago. Then he even could afford to pose as opposing the capitalist lackey Ship- stead, senior Farmer Labor Senator from Minne sota, In this campaign he completely ignores the question, But let us not be mistaken. At the State Convention of the Farmer Labor Party they defeated a resolution introduced by a rank and file delegate for. the recognition of the Soviet Union. Lundeen agrees with it fully. His coming out for greater armaments and for war preparations lines him up with all the enemies of the workers here and. in the Soviet Union. The Issues Are Clear Lundeen for years has kept the role of a friend of labor and thereby was able to serve best when not completely exposed. The work- ers and farmers of Minnesota must see through this bluff. Before the campaign is _over, the Communist Party of Minnesota must ‘expose this social fascist and the entire socéal fascist party of Minnesota, the Farmer Labor Party. The issues are clear and sharp. Lun- deen is nothing but a war monger. He is against the workers and for imperialist war preparations. The workers and farmers must Sele sean imperialist war and Vote Com- munist. “WHEW—WHAT By HARRISON GEORGE. (An-excerpt from the Agrarian Report to the Seventh Conven- tion of the Communist Party of the U. S. A.) rae, vee Another difficulty to the growth cf large-scale farming under capi- talism is that of securing land in workable units. Here capitalist de- velopment collides head-on with capital-limitations in the form of private ownership of land. Because the revolution nationalized land in Soviet Union, the Soviet farms ++ do not encounter this obstacle which the capitalist here, desiring to start a large-scale farm does; namely, the demand by numerous private own- ers of land to be paid its prite (the capitalized sum of gorund rent ob- tainable from it) before actually productive investment can begin op- eration, Those comrades who think that as bankrupt farmers are forced “off” the land (we must remember here that losing ownership is not necessarily losing occupancy as ren- ters), large-scale farms spring up, seem to forget that things are not so easy. Not all farms in a given, and workable, area are mortga-zed. Nor do all those which are mort- gaged fall into the hands of the sazie direct banking control. Nor do they all go bankrupt conveniently at the same time. They are scattered here and there and between different mortgage holders, and the problem of getting them united into a workable unit is difficult. A small farm cannot be just “stretched out” as a factory building may by adding more fivors. Nor has there ever been a way de- vised to take one small farm and move it over into the next township and join it to another so that a large-scale farm would result. Ana what happens when, between such farms, other farms are held by private owners, and a corpora- tion wishes to acquire the inter- mediate land for a really large- scale “factory” farm? The U. S. Chamber of Commerce tells us that such a corporation: “...would encounter, in the main, a group of small operators who were holding their land for higher prices than perhaps its current earnings justified. As |soon as the corporation made it known that it was in the market for a large block of land, prices asked would likely rise. In addi- tion, there would probably be holdings involved in litigation or without clear title which could no» he purchased at all.” Limit On Cost Reduction. Again, it is figured what the sit- uation would be once a tract of land suitable for large-scale operation had been acquired. A considerable reorganization to shift them from the family operation to large-scale operation would be necessary, mov- ing fences, relocating roads (and this matter of roads would entail perhaps litigation if the large-scale ferm cut off communication he- tween surrounding farms‘and popu- lation) all probably expensive; and if not done—“the corporation would be able to effect few, if any, oper- ating economies.” There is also reckoned the diffi- culty of operating capital for really A STENCH!” large-scale operations, a very prac- tical matter which some comraces forget. A rich farmer might be able to acquire by purchase or ren- tal, additional land, from the prof- its of his present holdings. But since at present he is farm- ing on the one-family farm tech- nical basis, even though with some hired labor and some more machin- ery than others, the whole world agrarian crisis makes capital ac- cumulation difficult. If he does uc- quire enough land besides his origi- nanl farm to set up large-scale op- erations, he almost cerlain!y must borrow money from the banks, and the acquiring of such land in a single unit is not always easy. Then, as is the case in a few in- stances, small farmers merge their holdings, accepting stock in the holding corporation for thcir prop- erties. Here there are again the primary difficulties of the relus- tance of the small individual holder to risk what he has in a collective organization whose ultimate success may be, at least to him, question- able; the quarrels over appraisal values; the competency « such small holders to give successful manage- ment, and the cost of reorganiza- tion on a rationalized basis— again the need for additional capital to be obtained only from the banks-— from finance capital. Does It Pay Compared With Industry? In regard to getting money from investors, the U.S. Chamber of Com- merce says in a cold-blooded way, that: “Whether such capital would be readily available would depend upon the extent to which corporstion farmihg would hold out advantages over other forms of industrial er- terprise as an investment field.” The Chamber made a survey to determine this, of 74 corooration warms in 28 different states, aver- aging 11,797 acres each, with an average capital of $553,743, which made a gross income for four years ending in 1928 of $102,676 on the average or something over 4 per cent, The chamber does not enthuse over this, and there is small won- der when capital invested in farm mortgages draws, at the least, 6 per cent, and often outrageously usuri- cus rates. Furthermore, how csn this cémpete with the reward of investment in industry? Surely we can see why the Chani- ber of Commerce is not enthusiastic over corporation farming, why it says it “is doubtful whether cor- poration operated farms will ‘en- creach seriously upon the small units’; why it suggests alterne- tives; the “evolution” of the family farm into farms three or four times as big, but still operated “largely by family labor”; and the other al- ternative, where “farm manage- ment firms undertake a vumber of management functions (note this “a number of”), usually for non-resi- dent landlords, at a’ fixed charge per acre.” ‘ But does this system resemble the AMERICAN LARGE SCALE FARMS AND THOSE OF -PHE: UlS. 3. ®. supplies, marketing of farm prod- ucts, audits of accounts and reports on operations to the owners.” We see that such farms are still on the technical basis of the one-family farm. . Again we emphasize that there is a growth in number of corporations engaged in farming but always not- ing the retarding influence of this growth. And as we have pointed out, this frequently does not mean large scale farming at all. Let us examine them from the best avail- able data, the “Statistics of Income” reports of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, over the period from 1918 to 1924 inclusive. Corporations running all kinds of farms in total, grew from 6,779 in 1918 to 8,275 in 1924, an average number of 7,594; of which 3,491 made an average profit of $15,177; while 4,103 had an average deficit of $10,421; the whole number, 7,594, making thus an average profit of only $1,347. Where is the “tremen- dous” growth that some comrades speculate upon? Not So Extraordinary The latest figures are for 1926, in which the total number of cor- porations had reached 9,303, with 4,192 making an average profit of $13,414 each; while 5,121 had an average deficit of $9,076; thus mak- ing for the total number, an average profit of $1,064. An average below, be, it noted, the average for the seven years from 1918 to 1924. There are, of ‘course, the few spectacular “factory” farms which so much fascinate so many com- rades. There is the large Campbell Farm of Montana, financed by J. P. Morgan, operating 95,000 acres, with 45,000 in crops each year; where they till 1,000 acres per day, using 52 tractors working three shifts and combine harvesters. threshing 300 acres a day. This farm is said to pay 12 per cent profit, and can make money even with prices so low that non-rationalized farms lose money. There is also the “Wheat Farm- ing Co.” of Hays, Kansas, running farms in a “chain.” This year it harvested 35,000 acres and their ad- vertising manager—and we can be suspicious of advertising managers —says it makes a profit of 1244 per cent. Undoubtedly the deepening agrar- ian crisis will stimulate the growth of large scale farms, of farm cor- porations, will consolidate more the grip of finance capital, but where is the “technical revolution” seen by the comrades who gave us the Draft Program for Negro Farmers. Where is the justification for the state- ment, in the criticism given us under Points No, 1 and 2 of the Krestin- tern letter, in reference to the “tech- nical revolution,” and. also to the supposed “policy of finance capital” which it says is “directed towards the support of corporations and big farmers?” I do not think this is exactly correct.. Finance capital is out for finance capital and nothing else, and if the big farmers are get- ting anything out of it they do not get it by any philanthropic disposi- collective farming of the Soviet|tion of finance capital. Union? Decidedly not. Such fune- It seems that some comrades are tions are limited to, let us note, “the|wholly fascinated. by the abstract selection of tena: ,” and so on, to|technical possibilities of large scale include “crop rotation plans,. soil] capitalist farming, and fail to take surveys, seed selection, supervision| into account the entire of livestock parasitic na- —BY BURCK| acter of capital in the age of im- perialism as a restricting factor to the development of production; they do not see the essential difference between the abstract technical pos- sibilities and the limitations to their realization under capitalism; that is, they fall seriously into error in By JORGE Beware of Crocodiles! We have received the first squawk from those pinched by “Red Sparks” digs at the confraternity of dignified comrades who think it is quite all right to order Daily Workers but not to pay for ’em. We are told that it is a grave political mistake to criticize D,O.s for entertaining this pleasant opinion and using the proceeds of Daily Worker sales to finance district work, to the point where the debts due to the Daily increased from $19,500 on May 1, to $29,500 on August 1. Perhaps our dear comrades do not consider that their irresponsibility has political signi- ficance. But Communists do not regard or- ganizational matters as a thing apart from their political contest. Perhaps some comrades, from the bad trad- itions of the past, think that self-criticism is something to be made behind closed doors of a sound-proof vault where the working class can’t hear—“just between ourselves.” But these comrades perhaps were not listen- ing when at the April Plenum and at the Seventh Convention both such criticism and the irresponsible vandalism toward proper ac- counting were sharply attacked. Also, our Party is in serious need of some- thing like they have in the Soviet Union, the Communist paper called “Crocodile,” which takes Party bureaucrats to pieces and holds the sad remains up to mass ridicule. None are spared—who deserve it. The “Crocodile” cartoons Stalin lecturing against bureaucracy to an audience composed completely of bureaucrats, and kids him: “What do you think you’re doing, talking to bureaucrats against bureaucracy?” Our Party tradition has been that criticism was meant.to destroy a factional opponent. That day is past. Nobody is after anyone’s scalp, But the central organ of the CPUSA demands what is coming to it, and the: paper expresses the determination of the Central Committee, not of any individual, to see that the Crocodile bites, in plain view of all work~ ers, those who treat Daily Worker accounts with that lighthearted abandon of a New York alderman toward the city treasury. ee ak To Waive or Not to Waive Funny, Jimmy Walker never even thought of making his fellow grafters waive immunity until after he was reminded that it didn’t look nice not to. And then, referring to the bunch of Knights of Columbus “commissioners,” he said: “[’ve given them twenty-four hours longer on account of the Jewish holiday today, I would not take any man who is observing re- ligious holiday and. say he must stop that and go down to the grafid jury arid pfesent him- estimating that what can be accom-' plished under the dictatorship of the proletariat, can be accomplished un- der capitalism; that capitalism is being organized. Third error. That the technical revolution has produced a crisis by creating a surplus in the field of agriculture. This is wrong. Of course better technique has aggra- vated the crisis. But the one-family farm made too great an advance in expansion during the war. The sur- plus has grown on the basis of the one-family farm and not on the basis of the technical revolution. Corporation farms in 1928, we are told, produced only six per cent of the total farm values. Surplus has grown on the basis of the one- family farm, faster than consump- tion. Now the general crisis will and is reducing consumption still further, so that the surplus will be increasing greatly. The Organized Capitalism Theory: To sum up: While we see the ad- vance of mechanization, and its rapidity since the imperialist war; while we see a certain growth of large scale corporation farming; we must regard as a mistake the over- estimation placed upon this by some comrades. Thus also, the otherwise excellent article of Comrade Louff- Rogen in the June Communist tends to accept too unquestioningly the “views” of Prof. Brookings, the “opinions” of the technical engineer MacMillan, and so on, though ad- mitting that there is no data’to bear these out. > * I think we must guard against this fishing around in abstractions and drawing conclusion’ that smell too much of the theory of organ- ized capitalism. I believe that data does exist, and that we have shown enough to prove the opposite. The Dakota comrades are quite correct in polemizing against this idea, though they get a bit off the track in attacking onr main Conven- tion Thesis where it says in Para- graph 10, something about “rapid industrialization’ They say it is not rapid. Well, the term is rela- tive. It-is Something like the fel- low on the witness stand in court. who was questioned on how fast a train was running: “Well,” he said, “it was running along.” “Was it running as fast as a man can run?” he was asked. “Oh yes,” he re- plied, “it was running as fast as two men can run.” Qur comrades self.” By no means, Jimmy! Sure, and when on some Saturday night, the second story men are cleaning up the jewelry in the region beyond the “deadline” where they’re not supposed to rob, the cops mustn’t interfere as the burglars must go to early mass Sunday. What difference does it make, though, to waive or not? What has become of all the fuss about milk racketeers gouging 20 cents a quart? It is still 20 cents and the “investiga- tion” has vatished as we said it would. pees | Perfect Harmony Ahead After the boiled shirt speeches at the Im- perial Conference, the papers tell us that Rams say MacDonald and the rest are holding a se- eret conference at which the dominion govern- ments are to say what they “really want.” Evidently what they said in the open is hokum. By the way MacDonald’s cabinet is for establishing “government import boards for the bulk buying of grain.” If they do that, we wonder if the Fish Committee will get the Chicago Wheat Pit to bar them because “for- eign governments are not supposed to trade.” That’s a privilege reserved for the U. S.° government—and only in case it helps the grain speculators. * Machado Has “Reasons” Machado recently explained how he figured it. He said a lot of things, but it sums up to this: The opposition demands that elections be postponed. But that would abrogate the con- stitution. So to resist this demand Machado insists on defending the constitutiag by sus- pending the constitution. That’s perfectly clear, isn’t it? The German “socialists” give exactly the same kind of “reasons” for supporting the dic- tatorship of Chancellor Bruening. Bruening has a program for abolishing or at least cut- ting down unemployment insurance and for a general wage cut against all workers. He says that if the Reichstag majority don’t approve of it, he will declare a dictatorship and put the program over that way. The socialists say they’re “against” the pro- gram, but they’re against any dictatorship still Puzzle: find the difference between Machado and the “socialists.” While Caesar Spoke The day after Hoover told the bankers that he was “inalterably opposed” to a reduction of the standard of living (for bankers), a worker walked into the Daily Worker office and handed us the following: in Dakota are cor but so is our Convention These the industrial- ization is going forward “as fast as two men can run.” Comrade Knutson,_in a note to the Dakota resolution, says that when he came to Moscow in 1925, nearly. everyone there had the idea “. . . that the small farm- er was practically a thing of the past that big farming was rapidly developing in the United States. When I told the comrades that I did not know qf any such big farm- ing movement in the country} they operations, purchase of fture of finance capital, of the char- were very much s “Dear Employee:—Due to the depression | in’ m commas te saan in order to eve com} eep up the business: compelled to take a 10 per cent re= | on your salary as of Friday, Sep- | 12th, 1980, and all overtime will have ' worked ‘at straight time.—Standard Hope you noted the “we,” who is to “take a 10 per cent reduction,” but on “your” salary. But why, if the business is depressed does there have to. be overtime? Funny things happen nowadays, with all the bosses “stand- firmly nst wage ” How they get oe something mysterious, isn’t it. ‘Yes, it N in more, so “to defend republican institutions ” against any dictatorship’—they support Bruening. j