The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-03
Discussion Of Our Party's Immediate Tasks

than the horizon Of the then-given
situation" Amongst menshevists
skepticism and doubt rise in direct
proportion to the "drawn-out and
laborious character the development
of class movements tends to assume,
Farmer-Labor Strength.
The fact Of the matter is that a
mere election union does not by itself
mean the organizational liquidation of
movement Least of all, does it
follow that such a campaign alliance
means the pprooting Of the idea and
of sentiment for farmer-labor party.
In certain sections of the country
many farmer-laborites maintained a
hostile attitude thruout the campaign
to the LaFollette encroachme1ts on
their organizations For instance, in
Minnesota, Magnus Johnson and Olson
running on the farmer-labor party
ticket polled higher vote than La
Toilette. The majority by which
LaFollette, running on an independent
ticket, was beaten by Coolidge was
much larger than the majority on
which those running on the farmer
labor party ticket were beaten.
Let us quote from the Minnesota
Trade Union Advocate of Nov 10,
1924 "In the states where q we'll
organized progressive movement ex-
listed, the LaFollette managers came
in and sought to launch a new move
ment without regard to the effect it
might have on the established farmer
labor organization. This resulted in
misunderstanding and antagonism
which was never successfully over
come. +.
"The result of this unwise policy
is now well-known. LaFolIette mot
only ran behind the state ticket of
Minnesota, but the confusion and
antagonism created by it is held
responsible for the failure to elect at
least the candidates for senator and
governor
"Only few counties of the state
were carried by LaFollette and in
these instances he ran behind the
nominees of the farmer-labor party for
United States senator and governor.
MANY theories are advanced in
explanation of these differences. 1t is
claimed by some that the vicious
attack on LaFollette caused many to
withhold support, while others main
tanned that the policies Of the LaFol-
lette movement in Minnesota, repealed
farmer-labor supporters
There is no doubt but what the
LaFoflette movement in the state had
ambitions to displace the established
farmer-labor party, and while this
intention was disavowed towards the
end of the campaign, the entire pro-
ceeding of the campaign committee
from its inception was condemned by
many who showed their opposition at
the ballot box. Cooiidge's vote over
than of LaFolIette will be twice as
large as that of Christianson's over
Olson"
In Washington, for example, the
farmerlabor party maintained its dis
tinct organization, ran its own state
and congressional candidates and
merely endorsed LaFollette and
Wheeler More than that. There is
good reason to believe that the lead
ers of this farmer-labor party would
likely never have sought to secure the
endorsement of their organization for
LaFollette or be tempted to drive
their followers into the LaFollette
election camp if the Workers Party
had not cut itself loose from the ma
tional farmer-labor party on july 10.
The bungling manner in which we
handled our change in policy then was
especially harmful.
In Montana, the farmer-labor party
also maintained it's own organization
and engaged in a sharp contest
against LaFollette's senatorial candi-
date, United States Senator Thomas ].
Walsh. In this conflict the farmer
labor party was able to appeal to a
goodly portion of Montana organized
labor, because of the declared hostil-
ity of the Montana State Federation
of Labor to Senator Walsh as an
enemy of the workers.
In Washington county, Pennsyl-
vania. and in Denver. Colorado, the
farmer-labor parties likewise main