The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-07-16
BY JAY LovEsToNE.
The Two Parties.

MO one will take the democratic
IN progressive pretentions seriously.
The record of the democratic party is
as uniform as that Of the republican
party in services rendered to the en-
ploying class.
At this juncture, it must be said that
tho there is no fundamental difference
between the republican and demo-
cratic parties, yet there are differ
ences in attitude towards sunOry DOM
este and foreign problems.
Now that the petty bourgeois, small
capitalist element Is more sharply
apart from the republican party than
ever, the republican party represents
solely the interests Of big capital. In
the councils of the party of Coolidge,
in the state as well as in the national
bodies, there is today no longer any
tangible conflict between the spokes-
men of the petty owners and the big
owners. Big capital is not only
supreme but rules without the feeblest
challenge. The acute agricultural
crisis prevailing for the last five years,
coupled with the increasing centraliza-
ton of state power, has driven what
ever small owning class elements
there were out of the ruling chambers
! of the republican party.
In the democratic party the situa-
ton is somewhat different. First of
all, there are still certain small CAPT
talist elements represented in its
councils. AS a matter of fact, despite
the rapid industrial development of
the South, cotton is still king in this
tier Of states. Then, there is some
friction between the rising capitalist
groups of the West and the ruling CAPT
talist clique of the East. Besides,
there are numerous, so-called political
ly unattached elements, principally
from the professional and other mid
die class groups, that adhere with
more or less regularity to the demo-
cratic party. Furthermore, until be-
fore the 1922 congressional elections
the skilled layer of organized labor
was almost solidly in the camp of the
democratic voters.
Thus, today, there is yet some basis
Of conflict between big capital and the
small owners in the democratic party
OF course, big capital rules the demo
cratic party and the small owners
take back seat at moments of party
decision on momentous questions
This conflict between the capitalist
groups is reflected in the character
of party deliberations, in the platform
of the party and in its standard
bearers.
Anyone who has carefully observed
the democratic convention at New
York could have clearly seen the i'm
print of wavering economic group
the middle class, on the platform
adopted. The very form in which the
democratic attitude toward the League
of Nations was expressed, the taxation
policy, the railroad policy, and the
Khan controversy, all reflected the in
fuence and the interests of the petty
bourgeoisie. At the same time, except
lOl lAO CdA III p1Ob4CAuJ anu III q ouldA
measure perhaps, the Khan issue, the
interests of the biggest capitals
groups were clearly dominant.
An examination of the roster o.
leading figures in the democratic par
ty reveals the correctness of our char
acterization of the democratic party.
Big Business Rules.
When Pat Harrison, making his key
note speech at the last convention
proclaimed the democratic party /;
party of the downtrodden," and whel
William Jennings Bryan, firing hi
blast against John w. Davis, echoed
such sentiments, they were engaging
in the crudest form of political dem
agogy and hypocrisy
If the republicans have their entr,
to the House of Morgan thru Dwigh
w. Morrow, a close friend of Presi
dent Coolidge, and member of th'