The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-10

action. If this is not an indication Of
the sentiment for independent politi-
cal action on the part Of the workers,
then what is it. OF course, these
masses were fooled by socialists and
labor bureaucrats, but their sentiment
is there nevertheless.
If there are conditions, that is the
industrial crisis and acute class strug-
gle which create the sentiment for in
dependent political action, and II there
is such sentiment among many mil
lion of workers and poor farmers Gas
the votes for Mr.. LaFollette showed)
and if we raise the slogan only when
there is a sentiment for it, then. where
is the ground for the majority propo-
sition to get rid Of our slogan for
class farmer-labor party?
Further, let us assume that the
masses do follow and will follow the
leadership Of petty bourgeoisie from
the LaFollette camp; let us further
assume that a definite political third
party will be organized very soon com
posed of those two elements, that
is, of petty bourgeoisie on the one
hand and the workers and poor farm
ers on the other, will we not work as
hard as we can in order to split the
labor wing from the leadership of the
petty bourgeoisie? Will not the slo-
gan "for class farmer-labor party"
be the most effective means to help
us accomplish that mission?
What slogan does the majority pro
pose to raise before and at the Janu-
airy convention of the LaFollette
movement? The socialists, the Anal
gamated people, the representatives Of
various state farmer-labor parties will
speak land mostly only speak for
labor party. How and by what means
will you most effectively unmask
them and prove to the masses that
they are not sincere, that they are on
ly talking and would never fight for a
class labor party? With our slogan
for class farmer-labor party" we
will compel them to open their cards
and appear before the masses as trail
tors and phrase mongers.
Now we come to the slogan: Flight
against leading the masses back to
the old parties" Even the majority
supports this slogan and have raised
it in their statement on the results of
elections. It is correct slogan.
But what do you propose to these
masses in place of the old parties?
Where is your logic to call upon them
not to go back into the old parties,
not to follow Mr.. Gompers who leads
them there and at the same time not
to tell them, in practical language,
where they should 60.
BY not telling them where to go you
are practically urging them and ask
ing them 10 remain with the LaFol-
lette movement and follow the lead.
ership of the petty bourgeoisie. Fur
Their, you are helping the LaFollette
movement and working for its sue
cess. So what becomes of your cry
that we must fight the LaFollette
movement? You see, you are not sin
cere when you say. you are going to
fight the LaFollette party. You de-
liberately and conscientiously are de-
livering the masses to this third
party"
The majority says that the advice
of the Comintern to break with the
policy Of the third party alliance"
was a correct one and they were and
are very much satisfied with it. say
you are not, or at least, you were not
satisfied with this advice. Comrade
Foster stood and fought for that al
lance. He said that we should not
oppose the nomination of Mr.. LaFol-
lette. He even went so far as to ex-
press himself that we ourselves may
advance his nomination. He said that
it is of prime Importance to break the
small bourgeoisie from the old parties.
The LaFollette movement will also
disrupt Mr.. Gompers non-partisan
policy in the American Federation of
Labor. And that is what we are after.
Once l put the following question to
Comrade Cannon: What do you think
will happen, if the G. l. rejects our
third party alliance'?" He answered:
1T would be very great blow for
the Workers Party and the farmer
labor party movement would be en-
tirely disrupted for many years to
come"
And now, because the c. 1. did not
approve this third party alliance"
the authors of the majority theses are
ready to get rid Of the slogan "for
class farmer-labor party" altogether.
Do the majority theses openly reject
the united front tactics? OF course,
not. These authors are not so child
ish to do so. On the contrary, they
declare that the united front policy
remains the central tactical means for
the class struggle and for building of
the Workers Party into a mass Com
munist Party" But the thing that we
are supposed to do now is ito start
a movement from below" form a