The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-03
By JAY LovEsToNE.

paign for a mass farmer-labOr party
divides itself into two main classes.
First, are those who are opposed on
principle to a farmerslabor party.
Second, are those who contend that
they are not opposed on principle to
a farmer-labor party but that, within
the last few months, the conditions
have changed and that the time has
come for the party to discard and
throw overheard its farmer-labor
united front activities.
Anti-Marxlst and Pseudo-Marxist
Opposition.
With the first school Of opposition
we will waste no time. This school is
frankly anti-Marxist in method and
purpose. The Communist Interna-
tional in its decisions on the American
question, has dealt with this school
effectively and at length.
The second school of opposition
makes a pretence at being MARKHAM,
at least in its method. This group of
opponents Of the Communists, utiliz-
ing and accelerating the movement
towards independent working class
political action thru a farmer-labor
party, talks about Conditions having
changed" This group contends that
the political and economic conditions
of the country have so changed as to
require the Workers Party to make
sharp change of its united front tac-
tics on the political field by cutting
itself loose from the farmer-labbr
slogan additionally and organization
ally.
Five Contentions-Five Fallacies.
The contentious of the latter group
of opponents to the farmer-labor policy
laid down for the party by the Com
munist International in its last deci-
sion can be subdivided into five prin-
cipal points:
1. They believe the LaFollette
movement has swallowed the farmer
labor movement thru the fact that the
various farmer-labor parties have lined
up with the LaFollette outfit during
the last election campaign. These
comrades insist that the union of the
farmer-labor party movement with the
LaFollette movement during the cleo
tions has signed the death warrant
and marked the doom of the farmer
labor movement as distinct political
movement.
g. They believe that the LaFollette
election venture was such great sue
cess as to ensure not only the com.
plete destruction of whatever organi-
rational strength the farmer-labor
movement had attained up to June II,
but to have brought about even the
total liquidation and utter extermina-
tion of the mass farmer-labor senti-
ment existing in the country before
the LaFollette nomination. These
comrades would have us believe that
the movement for a political united
front of the workers and poor farmers
now views the LaFollette conglomera-
ton as the farmer-Iabor party. These
comrades would have us believe that,
therefore, the hundreds of thousands
of farmer-laborites of yesterday don't
want and are not interested now in
/ dnOtuCI pOAlLACdA luON CAnCuts
8. Or they believe that the LaEol-
lette movement has received such a
crushing defeat In the election cam
paign as to spread paralyzing pessim-
ism, bitter disappointment, shatter-
ing of hopes in the ranks of the farm
er-labor masses; thus making it i'm
possible for the Communists to rally
these masses out of their supposed
present sloth of depression. These
comrades would have us believe that
the setback received by the LaFollette
campaigners has extinguished the
farmer-labor. flames that many once
hoped could be kindled into sweeping
the country like prairie fire.
4. They believe that within the last
few months the economic conditions
which served as the basis for what
was once the peak Of the farmer1abor
united front movement have changed
so fundamentally as to remove the
grounds for such farmer-labor united
/ front movement and have destroyed
the soil in which such a movement OF
the masses can grow and flourish.
5. They believe that since June II
the process of the political radicaliza'
ton Of the masses in the United
States has reached such high state
OF development and that the Workers
Party has won the political leadership
over so many masses as to make Il
possible and practicable for the Com
munists to make mass appeal to the
workers and poor farmers to join the
Workers Party directly, follow it polit
ically or rally around 1t extensively
in the everyday economic struggles
This contention translates itself into
the conclusion that the Workers Party
no longer needs a united front on the
political field with the mont Communist
organizations Of the workers and poor
farmers. .
The writer proposes TO examine
each OF these contentious and to show
that not a single one of them holds
water; that the conditions have not
Il