The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-03
nx JAMES ?. cANNoN.

Every Communist who can see
straight, knows that our election cam
paign this year, under our own ban
ner was one Of the greatest and most
significant achievements in the his
tory OF the party And every Com
munist who has the right attitude
toward his party 10 proud Of that
achievement; he wants every worker
to know about 1t and to understand
its great significance; and he will not
try to minimize 1t.
The party did right to enter the cleo
lions under its own name. Our cleo
ton campaign was a victory for the
party. It strengthened the revolu-
tionary morale OF our membership and
established our party as the only
working class political party in Am
erica. This is our position, clearly
stated in our theses.
The theses of the minority does not
speak in such clear and emphatic
terms about our election campaign
1t evades the issue. II completely
evades one of the most important
questions which must be answered be
fore we can decide our line for the
immediate future.
That question Is:
Was the Central Executive Com
nittse correct when II decided last
July against the opposition Of Com
rades Lovestone, Engdahl and
Browder, to withdraw support from
the Farmer-Labor Party and to enter
the elections under its own banner
with its own candidates?
Why the Minority Theses Fails te
Endorse Our Election Policy.
The evasion of these questions by
the Loyestone-R uthenberg thesis is nc
accident. The question was repeat
edly discussed in the meetings Of the
political committee prior to the con
sideration Of theses and the minority
is fully aware Of its Importance and
Of its indissoluble connection with our
future policy. The omission is con
scious and deliberate. There's rea
son" for It.
That reason is as follows: At least
a part Of the minority group repre-
scented by Comrade Lovestone, which
has become the dominant part Of the
minority group-the part which de
termines the policy Of the whole grouI
still maintains that the c. E. G
was wrong and that we should have
conducted the campaign under the
banner Of the farmer-labor party
Comrade Browder has long since ad
mitted his error, but in the meeting
Of the executive council of November
IA, both Comrades Lovestone anc
Enpdahl voted against the following
resolution:
''ln view Of the discussion that
has arisen in the c. E. c. over the
results Of the election and the re-
suits gained by the Workers Party
participating In the election under
It's own name, the c. {. c. considers
Il necessary to reaffirm its opinion
that the decision Of the c. E. c. in
its July meeting to withdraw its
support Of the national farmer-labor
party ticket and to enter its own
candidates In the campaign was cor
rect and the proposal of Comrades
Lovestone, Engdahl and Browder to
continue the campaign under the
banner Of the farmer-labor party
was wrong"
The Minority RidicuIes and Minimize
Our Election Campaign.
Comrade Ruthenberg and Bedacht
voted for the motion. but they mus
have done so with their tongues il
their cheeks, for their whole attitud.
ON the question of our election cam
paign is the same as Comrade Love
stones. That is, to persistently anC
systematically deride and belittle the
achievements Of the campaign in or
der to bolster up their theory tina
the Workers Party cannot do anything
under its own name. but must find /
substitute organization whenever
there is practical agitational work t.
be carried on.
The arguments they now bring for
ward against the Workers Party at
tempting to lead united front strug
giles in its own name and in favor o,
assigning that role to a mythica
''class farmer-labor party" are the
same arguments used by Comrads
Lovestone in the meeting on July 8
against the Workers Party raising iii
own banner in the election campaign
Their thesis is one long argument
against our election policy. The at
titude Of the minority toward our cleo