The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-11-15

A~ Ill Sontiy ueIendeo all the planks
In LaFollette's program, completely
abandoning every conception OF the
class struggle. In many places / met
anarchists wearing big LaFollette but
tons and loudly touting his cause For
getting their Observation-Disclosures
they We're dragged along with the
mass. The l. w. W. was also consider.
ably afflicted, many of its members
being avowed LaFolletteites. AS for
the trade union bureaucrats. most os
them at least Of the minor types.
looked upon the LaFollette movement
as godsend. 1t seemed a broad white
way to the pie-counter. The GomDars,
political policy has been such a fail.
ure that few of them have been ahIo
to work their way to political otfice
But when the LaFollette movement
came storming along, with even con.
servatiVe leaders like VIM. II Holm.
stone claiming that it would poll 90
OOO,OOO votes, they saw at last the
longed-for political jobs within their
grasp.
UP till the last three weeks of the
campaign the LaFollette movement
kept gaining momentum. After that
1t went into evident decline. This
was to be seen by the lowered NOR.
ale OF the trade unionists whom one
encountered. The great capitalist pro
paganda machine was getting into
action and getting real results. NOT
only did the great newspapers carry
on their red" scare effectively. hut
the bosses on the job openly told the
workers that if they didn't vote for
Coolidge they would soon find tbam.
selves among the unemployed. At
many OF my meetings workers told me
they were informed that if LaFolIette
was elected they should not come
Dack to work after election. The re-
suit OF this was q crumpIing of the
LaFollette movement. The action of
the Central Labor Union Of New York
IN cutting loose from LaFollette and
declaring for Davis i1st on the eve
OF the election, was a symptom of
Ml:sk WAS sesAz On among the mass
es generally. They were being scared
away from LaFollette en- masse.
In the campaign it was made strik-
ingly evident the, wisdom of the
change of party policy in cutting looss
from the national farmer-labor par
ty and the placing of candidates of
our own in the field.
AT many places where l talked /
asked the comrades to try to visualize
what would have been the situation
had we gone ahead and made the cam
paign under the banner of the farm
er-labor party. Almost unanimously
they were appalled, at the thought. It
would have meant that we would have
had in our meetings just about the
same people that we did have. The
difference would have been that in
the one case we would have had to
defend farmer-labor candidates and
farmer-labor program. The result
would have been decentralization and
confusion, which would have amount
ed to first class disaster to our party.
AS 1t was, we were able to present
Communist candidates upon a straight
Communist program. We introduced
the Workers Party formally to the
masses as a factor in the political
struggle.
The campaign was striking justi-
nSation of the policy of the Communist
International to participate in cleo
ton struggles. 1t was evident every
where that the masses were in a
thinking mood and it was a splendid
opportunity to present our program to
them. Besides the capitalist dictator
ship was considerably less rigorous
with regard to free speech than at
any other period. All over the coun-
try |, in common with our other speak
ers, was able to present our program
and to advocate the adoption of Sow
lets and the proletarian dictatorship
without ia