The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-09
HOW THE LaFOLLETTE SUCCESS"
FAILED TO DESTROY THE UNITED
FRONT FARlIER-LABOR MOVEMENT
BY JAY LovEsToNE.l

HE Foster-Bittelman Cannon group
1 is burdened with the Illusion that
the LaFollette venture was a bowling
success. In attempting to show that
the conditions have changed they tell
US that the working and poor farming
masses now look upon the LaFollette
election conglomeration as the farmer
labor party. Therefore, they say,
there is no longer mass demand for
a farmer-labor party and the Workers
Party must drop such united front
tactics.
We deny that the Communists can
no longer utilize, additionally or or
ganizationally, the sentiment for a
united front farmer-labor movement
as means of Fastening the develop
ment of the Workers Party into a
mass Communist party. We deny the
conclusion Of the FosterSCannon group
that the LaFollette movement, led and
dominated by the vacillating, weak
kneed petty bourgeoisie, cannot be
|assailed successfully by the Commun-
lists thru the slogan for a united front
Of the workers and exploited farmers
in mass farmer-labor party.
Great LaFollette Hopes Don't
Materialize.
Let us examine the facts. At the
outset, even the most rabid enthus-
last over the bowling success"
achieved by the LaFollette movement
in the last election nest recognize
certain irrefutable evidence. The
petty bourgeois optimists and all the
others who would have us believe that
the LaFollette movement is now in
the eye Of the masses what the farm
er-labor movement was up to June II
cannot deny that LaFollette ran far
below expectations in the election
campaign. Both of these groups which
see LaFollette invincible cannot deny
that the progressive" election
achievement was in this sense a dis
appointment.
The Wisconsin senator expected to
control from fifty to sixty votes in
the electoral college, and to lay a
strong enough basis in the new SEN
tie and house so as to enable many
If the more timid, wavering small
ihopkeeper and trade union bureau
crat elements to line up for perma-
nent new party. OF course, nothing
Of the sort has happened in the La
Toilette success" as everybody
Knows
Masses Being DisiIIusioned.
Many of the workers and poor
armers went along with the LaFol-
site movement during the election
ampaign because they expected and
oped that in this way they would
asten and assure the organization of
mass farmer-labor party. These
masses were wrong in their expecta.
lions and hopes. The disappointing
results achieved by the LaFolIette
outfit in the election is now a power
full force making for the disillusion-
ment of these masses in their atti
tude towards the LaFollette move
ment.
The close ties between the LaFol
lette movement and democrats and
republicans during the election cam
paigns in certain localities against the
farmer-labor parties is further open
ing the eyes of these masses. Then
the general conduct of the LaFollette
campaign, its weakness, its hesitancy
its failure to accept the reactionary
challenge are also forces making fol
a growing understanding by the work
ing and poor farming masses Of the
real character of LaFollette and his
aids.
Liquidating LaFoIletteism.
The election results and the reac
tions of various units of the LaFollettt
organization show clearly what con
Trajectory, what conflicting elements
the LaFollette movement consists of
There is no better way Of running
away further from the truth than by
stating that the LaFolIette movement
is already definitely crystallized
movement. Many republican anC
democratic supporters of the so-called
progressive party have already turned
their backs on the LaFollette move
ment. The vice-presidential candi
date, Wheeler, has gone to the demo
cratic party Canossa. Wheeler has