The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-10
By EARL 3. RRoWpER.

HOMRADE LOVESTONE has ex-
~ posed another section of the
right wing deviation of his group. In
his article in the DAILY WORKER of
Dec. 8, he says
mo one will contend that there
is TODAY, now mass de
mand for Communism or for ANAL
gamation. Yet we very properly to-
day, now, propagate and work for
Communism, for the Workers and
Farmers Soviet Republic and for
amalgamation, because there is an
economic basis for these slogans"
Now we know the reason for the
historical defense of the farmer-labor
slogan by the minority. They think it
expresses the same basic need Of the
proletariat as does Communism, or
amalgamation. They think the farm.
er-labor party is an organ of the class
struggle, equal in historical validity
with the Communist Party or with the
economic organs Of struggle Of the
workers. Therefore, % them it
makes no difference that the imme-
date political conditions have chang
cd; they did not favor the farmer
labor slogan on the grounds of imme-
date conditions, but, as they favor
the Communist Party or the amalga,
nation Of the trade unions, they stand
fer it whether it is a practical mass
slogan or not. They have faith that it
must become a mass slogan Just as
must Communism, the Soviet Repub-
lie. or amalgamation Of the trade
unions.
The Same Mistake as That Of the
German Right Wing.
This is petty bourgeois opportunism
with vengeance, more open and
fragrant than any ever exhibited in
the German party. The only reason
why it does not promise such imme-
date disaster is that the American
political struggle is not so far adj
vanced. Our minority is the Ameri-
can expression Of right wing revision
ism against which the Fifth Congress
sounded the alarm. We never ex-
pected that we would have the same
fight in America so quickly. But here
it is.
What was the essential error of the
German right wing? 1t is stated in a
paragraph by A. Maslow, leader of the
German Communist Party at present
in an article in Inprekorr No. n,
Nov. s:
THE Communist party is THE
party Of the PROLETARIAT. The
essence of Leninism is that it theo-
retically propagates and practically
realizes the thesis: there is and can
be only ONE party, THE party Of
the revolutionary proletariat. Events
in Europe have fully confirmed this
doctrine. Wherever it has been dis
regarded Gas in Germany in 1929
the proletariat has experienced a
defeat"
But Comrade Lovestone does not be-
lieve this. He believes that there not
ony can be two class parties (the
Communist and farmer-labor parties)
but that there must be the two, that
the second is fully as historically re-
quired as the first. He believes that
1t is just as much a duty of Commun,
lists to raise the slogan of farmer
labor party as it is to raise the slogan
OF a Workers and Farmers Govern
ment. His position is identical in
theory with that of the German right
wing which received such castiga-
ton at the Fifth Congress. The only
difference is that Comrade Lovestone
has not had an opportunity for doing
so much mischief.
LoVestone Says Labor Party Equally
Important With AmaIramatIon.
Our right wing says that the farm
er-labor party is equally as important
as the amalgamation of the trade
unions; they really think it much
more important than the trade unions.
as they will doubtless say openly be-
fore long. Lovestone specifically saws
that If the amalgamation slogan is
always timely, then so, also. is the
farmer-labor party slogan. Is this
Boishevik viewpoint? 1t is not. 1t is
another side of the same error pointed
out above, the complete misunder-
standing of the role of the Workers
(Oommunist) Party on the one hand
and a similarly complete misunder.
standing of the role of the trade un.
f>Ss on the other.
"You are aware" said Zinoviev
at the Fifth Congress, speaking on
the trade union question. "fhat fha
first split between the Bolsheviki
and the mensheviki occuNed in
1908, that is more than 2D<years
ago. The BoIsheviki have acted
quite differently in ths trade union
question In spite of the various
Suits in the political organizations
we have neither before, during, nor
after the revolution caused split
in any trade union" "The