The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-09-06
BY ALEXANDER RITTELMAN.


problem to study, to investigate and
to specialize in as are questions of
theory, tactics and policy. The i'm
preston prevails, not only in the
ranks but also among leading com
rades, that organization is simple
matter, that everybody can do it,
that the only things necessary for eff
cient organization work are will and
energy, and that anything else will
come by itself, as a matter of course.
Who Is Worrying About Organization?
l know, just as many others do,
that everybody in our party is worry
ing about party policies, tactics, stra-
tegy, internal line ups, factions, ETC.,
which is as it should be- 1t is the
duty land the privilege) of every
single party member and of every
party unit to think about and have a
say in determining the policies and
tactics of the party. One might say,
that the party as a whole does not yet
sufficiently realize even that. But
when it comes to questions of organ
ization, how many of us, even among
those that find themselves in posi-
tons of leadership, are really and ac-
tually occupied with meeting and
solving questions Of organization?
Without in the least desiring to be
rash or sweeping in my statements,
still l am compelled to say that few,
faxr ~, sIcf
tions of organization of sufficient i'm
portance to deserve systematic and
constant attention. We are still liv-
ing in the primitive period as far as
organization is concerned. The only
way we know how to do these things
is by the rule of thumb, by fits and
spasms, always in response to an
urgent and immediate need, never
properly prepared or equipped
What's the Problem?
Here I can sense the approach of
a protesting voice (or perhaps, a
whole chorus), saying something like
this: "Now, what do you mean by or
ganization being a problem? Don't
we know that ourselves? Don't we
always say that we have got to have
more organizers, more members, more
branches, more building the party?
The trouble lies not with the party as
a whole but with the C. e. C. or the
d. E. C. or the c. G. c. Let these
party committees get on the job and
organization will cease to be prob
lem"
This sort of reaction would be quite
natural, because this is the usual line
of reasoning. If something goes
wrong, who else is to blame if not the
C. e. c. or some other leading com
mittee? With some of our comrades
the main function of leading COM
mittee seems to be that of deposit
tory for all kinds of complaints and
criticisms.
Now, at this moment, l have no
particular desire to quarrel with this
conception of. a leading committee.
What must be driven home to our
party is the nature of the problem.
Is there such a problem? What does
It consist of?
We are all agreed that it is the
main duty Of our party to become a
mass Communist party. Very well.
We are all further agreed that the
way to do it is by our party engaging
in the immediate struggles Of the
workers and by utilizing every phase
Of these struggles for increasing our
ranks and our influence.
The above gives us the main
scheme of our organizational duties
and the general method for carrying
on the work. But this by itself is not
going to produce organizational re-
suits. To know, as we do, that
the way to build our party is thru en-
gaging in the immediate struggles OF
the workers is very good, indeed. The
question is, how many of our party
,,nsta ara arfuaIlv amazed in auch