The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-16

ganlZat1On or the Buffalo labor party
was distinctly a movement from the
bottom. Instead of dickering with the
labor leaders, the Buffalo comrades
assisted me in reaching every local
union in the city We went direct to
the rank and file, appearing night af-
ter night before scores of local unions
and, after winning them to our posi-
ton, deliberately forced the politi-
clans Of the central labor council to
yield to our demands. The result
was real united front party embrac-
ing over $4,000 organized workers and
composed of the local trade unions,
number of workmen's fraternal so
cieties and the Workers Party. To
day, according to information at hand
from Comrade James G. Campbell,
the leader of that party, there is
demand for its revival, which tends
to discredit the claim that LaFollette
swallowed the whole movement
Secondly, the creation of the Min
nesota farmer-labor federation, which
was assigned to me by the c. e. c.
was, for the most part, a movement
from the bottom. During the time l
was in Minnesota, our comrades lined
up many of the local unions and 9TH
er organizations in support of the
creation of such a movement, and
succeeded in winning influence and
membership for our party. The rank
and file support was the basis of our
negotiations with Mahoney and 9TH
ers in Minneapolis and st. Paul. I'm
fortunately some of the Minnesota
comrades, who are now in the ma
jority, entirely lost sight of the rank
and file support and considered the
end and aim of the movement as based
upon the success of placating Ma
honey. The Minnesota comrades will
well remember my vigorous objection
to the refusal of our delegates to take
issue with Mahoney on the question
of sending delegates to proposed
convention of the federated farmer
labor party that was to have been
held in Chicago the early part, of
this year. In spite of my instructions
to the contrary those enamored of
the united front from the top, refused
to fight for this measure at the Sep
TENDER, 1928 convention that organic
ed the Minnesota farmer-labor fedora
ton.
Both Buffalo and Minnesota were
bona tide movements from the bot
tom up and were real, and not imagin-
airy, organizations. That may not have
been the case with all our labor party
organizations. The majority claims
such was not the case with others.
but they cannot dispute the fact that
in these two instances the motivating
force came from the bottom under our
direction. AS matter of fact, some
OF the majority brazenly proclaim the
fact that they organized fake" labor
parties. If that is true, they con-
cealed the fact from the membership
by numerous subterfuges. Such adj
missions are distinctly shocking to
those who take the movement serious
ly and consider the future of the move
ment rather than the temporary vic
tory of faction in the party. With
such admissions as this, how is the
working class to judge us in the fu-
ture? /, for one, refuse to malign
our party with the charge that we
did organize fake labor parties" That
unenviable achievement may remain
the distinction of the majority, but it
never came to my notice, as a men,
Der Of the former c. E. c., otherwise
there would have been an explosion.
United Front With Leaders.
There was certainly serious err
ror made in the Minnesota situation
because some Of our leading local COM
rades had too much confidence in Ma
honey, an attitude | personally warn
ed them against. Their error, how
ever, was not confined to them alone
but was shared by the present ma
jority of the c. e. c. After the Or
ganization of the farmer-labor fedora
ZION the center OF gravity OF the labor
party movement shifted to Minnesota
and finally eliminated in the June II
convention.
AT that convention every effort was
made to conciliate Mahoney and Co.
Splitting tactics," according to the
majority, were decisively repudiated.
Pepperism, which was responsible for
the split at the July 3, 1928, conven-
ton at Chicago, was deeply buried
The majority bitterly complained
about the split with Fitzpatrick AZ
Chicago. They were determined that
there would be no further splitting
on their part.
The majority failed to understand
the united front. They failed to per-
ceive that there must inevitably come
time when splits are necessary, es-
pecially when dealing with leaders
Some OF them will go a short distance
with us, others quite far. But on the
path of revolution there inevitably
~