The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-09
Rx WILLIAM 2. FosTER.

policy has the support of the Com
munist international. BY series of
evasions, half-truths, and downright
misrepresentation they get around
the fact that conditions have greatly
changed since the Comintern o. KID
our farmer-labor party policy, and
that in the light of the new conditions
a new statement on this policy by the
G. l. is necessary and will be had in
the near future. The substance of
the changed conditions is that when
the Comintern consented to a farmer
labor party policy for the Workers
Party, there was in existence a mass
movement making toward the forma-
ton of a farmerlabor party. This
mass movement is no longer at hand.
It has been amalgamated or absorbed
into the LaFollette movement. Thus
has been destroyed the basis of the
farmer-labor party policy. 1t has been
made obsolete and its use would be
menace to the Workers Party. So the
Comintern will rule when the problem
is placed before it in the near future.
From the summer of 1922 until its
latest decision, the Comintern has al
ways recognized the principle that in
order for the Workers Party to propa-
gate the farmer-labor party slogan
there must be mass movement for
such party. In 1922, it was only
when there was shown to be a strong
movement amongst the masses for a
farmer-labor party that the C. l. first
agreed to our labor party policy. This
principle has been adhered to since in
all the letters and decisions of the C.
l. upon this matter. In its recent let
ter to the Workers Party on the sub
ject of the third party alliance the
same principle was enunciated. A
key sentence in the decision reads:
I'm many states farmer-labor parties
are springing up" This clearly shows
that the decision was based upon the
assumption that there was in exist
ence strong mass movement for a
farmer-labor party
But a clearer indication than this
that the Comintern would have the
Workers Party advocate the farmer
labor party slogan only if there was
a mass movement behind it, occurs
farther along in the decision, where
the St. Paul convention is dealt with
specifically. This section says:
''In case of a split the question
of whether or not the Workers
Party shall act altogether independ-
emily in its own name, in the cleo
ton campaign, or whether it shall
launch campaign under the name
Of the fafmer-labor party, will de-
pend largely upon whether or not it
(the Workers. Party is successful
in the split and will depend on how
far it maintains contact with the
working masses at the June II con-
vention."
This part of the decision is a sec
ton of an amendment which sub
mitted to the original draft, and which
was adopted in full It came about
this way. As result of over-optimis-
tic and exaggerated reports of the
great masses behind the federated
farmer-labor party, the belief existed
in Comintern circles that even if there
were a split with LaFollette at St.
Paul there would still be sentiment
enough to make a mass movement for
farmer-labor party. l disputed this
vigorously, asserting that only the
third party alliance" could prevent
the 81 90 g..
Dor movement with the LaFollette
movement, inasmuch as both move
ments we're ideologically the same. |
argued that if split took place at
st. Paul there would be nothing left
to the so-called farmer-labor move
ment, except the Workers Party and
its immediate sympathizers, which
would make necessary the abandon
ment of the farmer-labor party ticket
and the placing Of w. P. candidates
in the field.
Hence, introduced my amendment,
which provided for the Workers Party
running Independent in the EVENTUAL
ty of such a split as would destroy
the mass character of the "class"
farmer-labor party movement, as Com
rade Ruthenberg calls it. The amend
ment was Immediately accepted. Com
rade Zinoyiev endorsed it personally.
and it was adopted unanimously by
the presidium. This shows concIu-
sively that the Comintern considers
the farmer-labor party slogan dead
unless the masses can be rallied by IL.
The G. !. never intended and does not
intend now that we should struggle
behind the farmer-labor party slogan
II there are no masses supporting il.
The minority proposition of propagat-
ing the farmer-labor party slogan in
season and out Of season, mass move.
ment or no mass movement, is con-
trary 70 the whole spirit of all the
Comintern decisions on the subject.
Events at the June II convention
and afterward proved the necessity
II the aforementioned amendment.
The split with the LaFollette move